Posts Tagged ‘fatality’
Increasing speed limits on highways and urban roadways has had an effect on the number of traffic-related fatalities in recent years. New studies carried out by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have shown that many of the incremental speed limit increases have increased the number of deaths on the roadways where the speed limit increases have occurred. Speed limit increases are typically carried out in an effort to reduce traffic jams, traffic related breakdowns, driver road rage, and transportation costs. Many of the reasons that speed limits are increased are to reduce financial and time-related costs and reduce traffic annoyance. New thinking from congress is working towards reducing traffic fatalities; however lowering speed limits may, in turn, raise financial costs of travel.
Individual states are responsible for managing their own speed limits. Texas is currently the only state in the union that has a maximum speed limit of 85 mph. There are six other states, including Utah, that have maximum speeds limits of 80 mph. The majority of remaining states in the middle of the country have maximum speed limits of 75 mph. In 1995, Congress repealed federally mandated speed limits and turned the responsibility of establishing maximum speed limits over to states.
The main conclusion drawn from the data shows that, for every 5 mph of speed limit increase, fatal traffic deaths increase by approximately 4 percent in rural areas, and 8 percent, or more, in urban areas. See graphs below. Unfortunately many fatalities are not reported or not included in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety survey, so the results of increasing the speed limit are most likely under-estimated. The speed limit that was federally mandated back in 1993 was 65 mph. Since then, many states have increased their maximum speeds as shown in the graph below.
taken from http://www.iihs.org
A recent fire in Harrisburg Pennsylvania is thought to have been caused by a hoverboard. If the fire department investigation determines that the hoverboard was the cause of the blaze, the fire will be the first ever fatality caused by a hoverboard, marking the failure of a recall put in place last year by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Consumer Product Safety Commission implemented an industry-wide recall in 2016 that affected many hoverboards from 10 major manufacturers in an attempt to eliminate the potential threat of fire caused by the hoverboard’s batteries. Police and fire investigators are still investigating the blaze, which left a toddler dead in the aftermath.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission recall covered more than 500,000 hoverboards, warning that the hoverboard’s batteries did not meet strict federal safety standards for fire resistance. During charging, the hoverboard’s batteries can overheat, or rupture. If the amount of heat is significant enough, the batteries may actually catch fire, melting the hoverboard itself and causing more severe property damage and personal injury. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has investigated over 60 separate cases of hoverboard fires since 2015. Consumers are still covered by the recall and can take advantage of a battery replacement if their hoverboard batteries are determined to be defective.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission initially had difficulty enforcing the recall since many of the products come from overseas manufacturers who were eager to cash in on the increasingly popular hoverboard trend early on. These days, hoverboard manufacturers from reputable brands carry a certification from the Underwriter’s Laboratories certifying that their batteries have undergone very rigorous and thorough testing to reduce the likelihood of fire or explosion during normal usage. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends that consumers review their purchased hoverboard or potential purchase for the “UL” symbol which certifies that the product has been tested by the Underwriter’s Laboratories as a safer product.
taken from www.foxbusiness.com
Semi Trailer bumpers are becoming more technologically advanced in an effort to reduce the likelihood of severe injury or death in the event of a rear-end collision. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, IIHS, has tested new semi bumpers and determined that new designs are performing much better than previous iterations used on older trailers. The trailer bumpers, known in the industry as ICC bumpers (after the Interstate Commerce Commission) or simply as underride guards, are put in place to protect passenger vehicles against the high-slung blunt edges of a trailer in the event that a passenger vehicle collides with the rear of the trailer. Typically, trailer decks on semi trailers sit at a height of about 48 inches, whereas a typical passenger vehicle’s front clip sits much lower than this. In some cases, the entire front of a passenger car can fit underneath a trailer deck, positioning the deck edge at a point where the vehicle’s occupants’ heads could be decapitated in the event of an accident.
The IIHS has undertaken testing of trailer ICC bars from trailer manufacturers such as Great Dane, Manac, Stoughton, Vanguard, Wabash, Hyundai Translead, Strick, and Utility to find out how new ICC bar configurations fare against three distinct rear-end collision tests. The first test is directed at the full width of the ICC bar, impacted by a vehicle traveling 35 mph. The second test focuses at approximately 50 percent of the width of the ICC bar, again at 35 mph. The third test focuses the impacting vehicle at only the edge of the ICC bar to determine how well it sustains an offset collision.
Despite the improvements in ICC bar technology, government statistics show that commercial vehicle versus passenger vehicle accidents are still on the rise. Even worse, the number of fatalities caused by commercial vehicle crashes has increased between 2011 and 2015 by over 39 percent.
Taken from www.motor1.com