| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Oversight Review

Page history last edited by Frank Broen 9 years, 2 months ago

  1. There are not enough design critics and oversight review process

     requirements.

We can swap out a signal with a roundabout and get a 90% reduction in fatalities.

 

Date:    Fri, 2 Jan 2015 22:39:58 -0500

From:    RICHARD BOYD <dickboyd@AOL.COM>

Subject: Re: There are not enough design critics and oversight review process requirements.

 

----------MB_8D1F51E14F4F679_17DC_2017F5_webmail-vm085.sysops.aol.com

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

 

 

Phil, thanks for your explanation of professional responsibility.

 

Concentrating on road and vehicle design errors, what has to be done?

 

Concentrating on drivers, what has to be done?

 

Speaking from my experience in aircraft navigation and aircraft maintenance= . I see the need for coordination between disciplines.

 

Disciplines to consider:

Human Factors,

Education,

Quality Control,

Vehicle performance,

Roadway design and construction,

Interaction of driver and vehicle,

Interaction of driver and road,

Interaction of vehicle and road,

Interaction of driver, vehicle and road.

 

A few points of light:

Dean Johnson,

NMA,

BHPSA,

NHTSA, (potential, anyway)

Performance evaluation Monitoring System, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, County Health Ranking, Activists in North Carolina who explain the shortcoming of following a spec= ification that does not reflect the real world.

Egg drop experiments,

Convincer programs run by educators, not police. Police tend to treat safet= y instruction as an e-ticket ride.

 

An attitude in need of correction. "It meets the spec." When in reality, th= e specification does not reflect real world. Duration of yellow signal, for=  instance. Reflectivity of sign given more importance than readability for = understanding. Centerline marking on curving mountain roads, for instance. = Snow poles as "highways in the sky" for delineation of road curves. Or sola= r lights when the vehicle is not in line with the reflector. Recognizing im= proved designs. California marking of distance to off-ramps using countdown=  markers.

 

Slippery when wet? Does that mean there aren't any civil engineers who know=  how to drain a road? But have enough judges believing that it is the motor= ist who caused the crash? Judges who believe the sign is sufficient to defl= ect responsibility away from government?

 

Traffic signs that call attention to the sign, but not to the hazard. Or an=  education system that does not teach how to react to situations? Or how to=  anticipate and avoid hazards.

 

You get what you reward. If you reward stonewalling, you get stonewalling. = Safety recall? What safety? Spend fifteen minutes to save fifteen percent? = What about spending ten minutes to identify the causes of the crash and fiv= e minutes to identify corrective action? County Health Rankings identify da= ngerous locations, but not the need for "golden hour" support. Identifying = "golden' hour" support is left to local government. Governments whose attit= ude is "that's not our job, we don't know whose job it is and it isn't our = job to know whose job it is."

 

Phil, you said: "We can swap out a signal for a roundabout and get a 90% re= duction..." Did you mean to say "We can swap out a signal with a roundabout=  and get a 90% reduction..."=20

 

TRB is a good start.

=20

RICHARD BOYD

dickboyd@aol.com

Jeremy's grandfather


Thank you Phil.  Our roads were once number one in fatality rates in 1970

according to the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development

(OECD).   And OECD puts us at 15 now among the two dozens or so nations

they recently reported data on. The top three or four nations including the

U.K. have half our fatality rate per miles of car travel--that translates

to 15,000 needless fatalities here in the U.S. alone if only we addressed

safety deficiencies--roundabouts needed in place of signals probably the

most glaring deficiency.   As more and more folks--led by the

millennials--give up licensing, reduce their car travel and switch to more

walking and bicycling (at least trying to in our unbikable/unwalkable

downtowns and urban areas!), walking and bike fatalities are on the

increase while the vehicle occupant numbers continue a slow decline.  The

need for roundabouts to serve demand for safe walking and bicycling has yet

to move the needle of 400-500 roundabouts production yearly in

U.S./Canada.  An Ebola death galvanized the country but the growth from 621

walker fatalities to 722 (2010-2012) hardly gets notice.

 

         Tony

 


Subject: Human error: and driving conflicts

 

Yes, the basis of the 93% is police reports.  In my opinion it is likely higher if one considers bringing in issues of driver preparedness, maintenance of vehicle, choices to drive on a bad weather day - which can be considered driver error prior to driving.

 

I think roundabouts work in this human error environment for 3 primary reasons. the design eliminates left turns, there are fewer conflicts, and the design (should) reduce speeds to the 15-25 range so avoidance actions require less distance resulting in fewer crashes.  I don't think the roundabout design eliminates driver error. The design creates an environment where there is less driver workload, fewer choices and therefore fewer errors to be made.

 

Overall the quality of the roadway design and traffic control is a strong contributing factor but not in the way most think.  In my opinion, if the design is half way decent the majority of crashes can be avoided. The design does not cause the crash, but the design can increase the probability of a crash. In other words human error is more likely in some conditions, conditions that include the roadway design and traffic controls.

 

When a roundabout achieves a 95% reduction in serious injuries, the demographics have not changed. The number of DUIs and inattentive drivers lacking seat belts has not changed - just the design of the intersection.  When a raised median is placed on a five or seven lane cross-section and limiting lefts to well spaced and well designed intersections, the 30-40 % reduction in crashes is not because the demographics have changed. The design has changed, driver workload reduced and the rate of driver error reduced.

 

It's all about reducing the quantity, rate and speed differential of roadway conflicts a driver must handle during the journey.

 

Phil Demosthenes -  303-349-9497 (mobile)

phil@pdemos.com


Phil said:

While studies have shown that about 93% of all crashes are due to human error,.... 

Agreed, that is what the studies said. Might I edit that to read. studies based on police reports have shown...

 

Police reports are sometimes (often?) based on the idea that when something is lost, it is always found in the last place you look.

Why is that so?

Because when you find it, you stop looking.

So when the officer finds a chargeable offense, he or she stops looking.

 

Crash reconstructionists have a more extensive check list compared to the first on scene officer. Even so, reconstruction tends to back the first responding officer. Does the citation meet black letter law? If yes, then move on, what else is there to look at?

 

Well, maybe we should look at the law. And what the law is based on.

 

My observation is that the first officer on scene does triage to reduce damage. Including damage to the public entity responsible for the road and damage to the manufacturer responsible for the vehicle. That leaves the motorist as the responsible party. The party insuring the motorist has the fiduciary responsibility. Legal action dictates that approach. When the courts believe any liability exposes the party to payment based on the ability to pay, lawyers will go after deep pockets. To me, this is a defect in the law. A defect that engineers may not recognize. For that matter, legal people may not recognize deep pocket target mentality as a defect. Going after deep pockets is their bread and butter and pays for the education of their children.

 

Compare that to the attitude in aircraft or ship crashes. Investigation is never a "shoot from the hip" guess to fix the blame. The media respects the safety inspectors hesitancy to make a statement until all the tees are crossed, all the eyes are dotted and the chickens come home to roost. Investigators are focused on fixing the problem. Investigations are focused on preventing similar crashes.

 

Editors are focused on writing a gory headline which will entice people to read the story, watch the TV or listen to the radio. All in an effort to sell a product advertised by the sponsor.

 

As long as those in a position to fix the problem believe that 93% or crashes are human error, and the human error is that of the driver, the underlying problem will not get fixed. The underlying problem will be ignored.

 

Can we admit that 100% of crashes are due to human error? Then try to find which human was in error? Was it the driver behind the wheel? The engineer behind the ignition switch design? The engineer behind the road design? The maintenance crew behind roughness index, friction, signage, signal timing and grade? The instructor who taught the motorist? The vendor selling bogus parts? Enforcement officers who did not enforce correctly?

 

Did the driver not understand the physical concepts behind a roundabout? Constant relative bearing, closing distance means a crash. Unless the driver changes speed or direction. Did the roundabout designer not know how to design a road that focuses the driver on where the car is going? At what speed? And into what hazards?

Relative speed is important.

How do instructors teach roundabouts?

 

Something else to consider is that there is almost never a single incident which causes the crash. But there are many things, any one of which, if done differently would have avoided the crash or reduced crash damage.

 

TRB and conferences are for identifying solutions and proposing tests to see which actions have positive results. Boards and Commissions are supposed to get more than one point of view.

 

You get what you reward. Reward the lizard and stock insurance companies and financial reward goes to third party shareholders. Reward a mutual company that cherry picks and educates its clients and sponsors research to prevent crashes and you will get more preventive actions.

 

RICHARD BOYD
dickboyd@aol.com

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.