Traffic Fatalities Up Nearly 8 Percent in 2015

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 35,200 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2015, a 7.7 percent increase from 2014. This increase is a result of a combination of a 3.5 percent increase in vehicle miles of travel plus a 4.1 percent increase in fatalities per billion miles traveled.

The 32,500 number is a “statistical projection,” not an exact count, which won’t be available until this fall. NHTSA’s previous statistical projections have been fairly accurate; the estimate for 2014 turned out to match the final number exactly, while the average for the previous six years was off by only 26. The worst was in 2012, when the projection was 298 too high.

According to NHTSA’s estimate, fatalities increased the most in the Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington), with a 20 percent gain. Fatalities declined 1 percent in the South Central region (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), while they grew from 4 to 10 percent in the rest of the country.

Fatalities grew most for people outside of cars. Cyclist deaths grew by 13 percent (from 726 in 2014); pedestrian by 10 percent (from 4,884); and motorcyclist by 9 percent (from 4,586). Driver deaths grew by just 6 percent and passenger by 7 percent. Rollover deaths grew by an estimated 5 percent.

What’s most worrisome is the increased rate of deaths per billion miles of driving. Since 1910, cars have generally been getting safer per mile of driving, so when they get more dangerous it is a cause for concern. As the table above shows, the rate declined dramatically between 2007 and 2009, years in which total driving declined. It grew slightly in 2012, when driving grew by nearly 1 percent. It declined for the next two years but grew in 2015, when driving also grew by 3.5 percent.

In other words, there is some correlation between the changes in the amount of driving and fatality rates. This suggests that the changes in fatality rates are partly due to congestion that could have been avoided if cities and states had increased road capacities to keep up with traffic growth. As the Antiplanner suggested in 2010, “if a 3.5 percent decline in driving can produce a 9.3 percent decline in fatalities, wouldn’t a 3.5 percent increase in highway capacities have produced the same result without having a recession?” Similarly, if a 3.5 percent increase in driving leads to a 4.1 percent increase in the fatality rate, wouldn’t a 3.5 percent increase in highway capacities have kept that increase down to near-zero?

For example, the population of the Portland urban area has grown by 80 percent in the last 30 years, yet the Oregon part of the region did not open any new highways until last week. That new road is primarily aimed at moving trucks to an industrial area, not at moving commuters or other auto traffic, so the region maintains its anti-auto purity, putting most of its transportation capital funds into building expensive (and dangerous) light-rail lines instead of anything that would actually reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic safety.
This is quite mandatory as the medicine needs certain time limit to get into the blood which would pamelaannschoolofdance.com soft tabs cialis later on show the best results while carrying out the love making sessions on the bed. Thanks to the continued research and cialis 40 mg innovation in the new bill will end “the tricks-and-traps business model that was designed to introduce the Youth Advisory Committee, and also present young African professionals with a networking platform. The effect of cheap kamagra UK will remain on the body cialis lowest price pamelaannschoolofdance.com for 4 to 6 hours duration. A tomato has four chambers and pamelaannschoolofdance.com purchase tadalafil is red.

In this diagram, the semi-truck is listed as “vehicle 1” and the Tesla as “vehicle 2.” Florida accident reports traditionally list the vehicle whose driver is initially considered to be at fault as “vehicle 1.”

But enough ranting about Portland. A few more details have emerged about the fatal Tesla auto-pilot accident that took place in May. First, the above graphic from the accident report shows that a semi-truck/trailer turned left into the path of the Tesla. This suggests that the truck driver may have been nominally at fault for not yielding the right of way to on-coming traffic.

Second, Mobileye, the company that made the radar system used in the Tesla, said in its defense that its system was designed solely to prevent rear-end collisions with vehicles in the same direction of travel as the radar-equipped vehicle, not to detect and avoid collisions with “laterally crossing vehicles.” The company said it plans to incorporate “Lateral Turn Across Path (LTAP) detection capabilities beginning in 2018.”

Tesla responded that it had enhanced the system to automatically brake “in response to any interruption of the ground plane.” However, in the accident in question, the “high, white side of the truck” may have looked to the system like an overhead road sign, so it failed to brake.

Beyond this, there are a lot of rumors about the crash. One is that the Tesla occupant was watching a Harry Potter movie instead of the road, but another witness said they saw no movie playing in the car. Another is that the Tesla passed someone else on the road who was going 85 (in a 65-mph zone), but the same witness who said he saw no movie playing in the car also said the Tesla did not appear to be speeding. This rumor came solely from the interview in the video below and can’t be considered reliable.

What we do know is that what Tesla calls an “autopilot” system is not a self-driving car, but an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). The NHTSA has a five-level system (0 through 4) of describing vehicle automation under which the Tesla would probably be considered level 2 (“at least two controls can be automated in unison, such as adaptive cruise control in combination with lane keeping”), while a fully self-driven car is level 4 (“the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time”). The problem is that drivers such as Joshua Brown appear to have treated the Tesla as level 3 (“the driver can fully cede control of all safety-critical functions in certain conditions”).

The legal problem Tesla will face is whether its public statements encouraged drivers such as Brown to rely too heavily on the autopilot system. The broader problem that self-driving car proponents face is to educate the public on the difference between ADAS and true self-driving cars and how to prevent people from assuming that their ADAS cars can do more than they are designed to do.