Thursday, December 2, 2021
The Deadly Myth That Human Error Causes Most Car Crashes
Likely enough, human error was unavoidable. Why was it unavoidable? Impairment is avoidable, driving conditions not so much. How about car color? Many colors become invisible or badly obscured in rainy conditions. So just fix this already.
How about fuel weight shift on a tight curve shifting the center of mass sharply enough to cause tread slippage. It does not just happen on the track. This can be engineered out.
Europe tells us we need to pay attentilon and they have autobahns.
The Deadly Myth That Human Error Causes Most Car Crashes
Every year thousands of Americans die on the roads. Individuals take the blame for systemic problems.
By David Zipper4
David McNew/Getty; The Atlantic
NOVEMBER 26, 2021, 7 AM ET
About the author: David Zipper is a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Taubman Center for State and Local Government. He writes frequently about the future of urban mobility and technology.
More than 20,000 people died on American roadways from January to June, the highest total for the first half of any year since 2006. U.S. road fatalities have risen by more than 10 percent over the past decade, even as they have fallen across most of the developed world. In the European Union, whose population is one-third larger than America’s, traffic deaths dropped by 36 percent between 2010 and 2020, to 18,800. That downward trend is no accident: European regulators have pushed carmakers to build vehicles that are safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and governments regularly adjust road designs after a crash to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
But in the United States, the responsibility for road safety largely falls on the individual sitting behind the wheel, or riding a bike, or crossing the street. American transportation departments, law-enforcement agencies, and news outlets frequently maintain that most crashes—indeed, 94 percent of them, according to the most widely circulated statistic—are solely due to human error. Blaming the bad decisions of road users implies that nobody else could have prevented them. That enables car companies to deflect attention from their decisions to add heft and height to the SUVs and trucks that make up an ever-larger portion of vehicle sales, and it allows traffic engineers to escape scrutiny for dangerous street designs.
The recently passed infrastructure bill will encourage some safety improvements, including technology to prevent drunk people from operating a car and better crash tests to address risk to people outside a vehicle. Yet even as the federal government prepares to shovel out hundreds of billions of dollars for roadwork, Americans’ fundamental misconception of traffic deaths as merely a profusion of individual mistakes will go largely uncorrected.
In 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation, published a two-page memo declaring that “the critical reason, which is the last event in the crash causal chain, was assigned to the driver in 94% of the crashes.” The memo, which was based on the NHTSA’s own analysis of crashes, then offered a key caveat: “Although the critical reason is an important part of the description of events leading up to the crash, it is not intended to be interpreted as the cause of the crash.”
To understand what the NHTSA was trying to say, imagine the following scenario: It’s a foggy day, and the driver of an SUV is traveling along a road at the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The limit then drops to 25 as the road approaches a town—but the road’s lanes do not narrow (which would naturally compel a driver to apply the brakes), and the lone sign announcing the lower speed limit is partially obstructed. Oblivious to the change, the driver keeps traveling at 40. As he enters the town, a pedestrian crosses the road at an intersection without a stoplight. The driver strikes the pedestrian.
By the federal government’s definition, the “critical reason” for this hypothetical crash—the last event in the causal chain—is the error made by the driver who was speeding at the time of the collision. Almost certainly, the police will hold him responsible. But that overlooks many other factors: The foggy weather obscured the driver’s vision;, flawed traffic engineering failed to compel him to slow down as he approached the intersection; the SUV’s weight made the force of the impact much greater than a sedan’s would have been.
The authors of the 2015 NHTSA report were aware of such contributing factors. But their disclaimer that the “critical reason” for a crash is not the same as the “cause” has been largely ignored. Even a page on the agency’s own website whittles the message down to “94% of serious crashes are due to human error.”
Seeking to find a single cause for a crash is a fundamentally flawed approach to road safety, but it underpins much of American traffic enforcement and crash prevention. After a collision, police file a report, noting who violated traffic laws and generally ignoring factors like road and vehicle design. Insurance companies, too, are structured to hold someone accountable. Drivers aren’t the only ones who face such judgments. Following a crash, a pedestrian might be blamed for crossing a street where there is no crosswalk (even if the nearest one is a quarter mile away), and a cyclist might be cited for not wearing a helmet (although a protected bike lane would have prevented the crash entirely). News stories reinforce these narratives, with stories limited to the driver who was speeding or the pedestrian who crossed against the light.
Indeed, journalists have disseminated the misleading 94 percent line on influential platforms including The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, and The Washington Post. Research institutions such as the University of Michigan and the University of Idaho have done it too. Even former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has helped sow confusion, as have transportation departments in states such as Illinois, Utah, and Texas.
“The 94 percent line is a repeated reference at almost every state [department of transportation] conference I’ve ever attended,” Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, told me. When the Michigan DOT spokesman Jeff Cranson speculated in a 2019 podcast that human error is actually responsible for more than 95 percent of crashes, the Michigan State University engineering professor Timothy Gates responded, “Yeah, I would agree with that, there’s very few crashes caused by a vehicle defect or road defect, a lot of it really is human error.” That’s a convenient perspective for engineers designing vehicles and roads.
And if the buck stops with the driver, automakers feel less pressure to make lifesaving safety features standard across their models—which many of them do not. Last year, Consumer Reports found that the average vehicle buyer would have to pay $2,500 for a blind-spot-detection system. Pedestrian-detection technology was standard on 13 of the 15 most popular vehicle models—but unavailable on one and part of a $16,000 optional package on another.
With responsibility falling on those directly involved in a crash, it’s unsurprising that so many highway-safety efforts revolve around education campaigns, assuming that if people were just more careful, we’d all be okay. Officials at the NHTSA and state DOTs pour millions of dollars into these programs, but their benefits seem modest at best. Officials “see their role as trying to cajole people on the roads to make smarter decisions,” Seth LaJeunesse, a senior research associate at the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center, told me. “Wear a seat belt, don’t be drunk when driving, and signal appropriately. I think it’s misguided. After all, who’s going to address structural problems, if it’s just people being stupid out there on the road?”
For now, the idea that human error causes nearly all crashes is a useful talking point for the makers of autonomous-vehicle technology, which supposedly will prevent such mistakes. Companies including General Motors, Google, and the start-up Aurora have touted the 94 percent statistic in promotional materials, press statements, and even SEC filings. But, as the Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor Phil Koopman has pointed out, autonomous systems will make their own errors on the road. He does not expect AVs to reduce crashes by more than 50 percent, even in a best-case scenario. And an all-autonomous driving future is still at least decades away, suggesting that AVs will not reverse the growing death toll on American roads for many years to come—if they ever do.
With the infrastructure bill now signed into law, the federal government has a chance to rethink its approach and messaging. Dumping the dangerous 94 percent myth would be a good start; deemphasizing pointless traffic-safety PR campaigns would help too. Encouraging state and local transportation agencies—not just law enforcement—to investigate crashes, which New York City is now doing, would be even better. What we need most is a reexamination of how carmakers, traffic engineers, and community members—as well as the traveling public—together bear responsibility for saving some of the thousands of lives lost annually on American roadways. Blaming human error alone is convenient, but it places all Americans in greater danger.
"Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""Hakuna shaka kwamba makosa ya kibinadamu husababisha ajali nyingi za magari, lakini ni dhahiri kwamba makosa ya kibinadamu hayakuepukika.""" Kwa nini haingeweza kuepukika? Uharibifu wa uwezo wa kuendesha gari unaweza kuepukwa, lakini hali za kuendesha gari haziwezi kuepukwa. Vipi kuhusu rangi ya gari? Rangi nyingi hazionekani au hufichwa vibaya wakati wa mvua. Kwa hiyo tu kurekebisha hii mara moja. Vipi kuhusu uzito wa mafuta kuhamisha juu ya curve tight kuhamisha kituo cha wingi kwa kasi ya kutosha kusababisha tread slippage. Haitokea tu kwenye uwanja wa michezo. Jambo hili laweza kutengenezwa. Ulaya inatuambia tunahitaji kulipa attentilon na wana autobahns. Uongo wa kuwa makosa ya binadamu husababisha ajali nyingi za magari Kila mwaka maelfu ya Wamarekani hufa barabarani. Watu binafsi huchukua hatia ya matatizo ya mfumo. David Zipper ni mwanafunzi wa chuo kikuu cha Harvard na mwanafunzi wa chuo kikuu cha Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Yeye anaandika mara kwa mara kuhusu siku zijazo za uhamaji wa mijini na teknolojia. Zaidi ya watu 20,000 walifariki barabarani Marekani kuanzia Januari hadi Juni, idadi kubwa zaidi katika nusu ya kwanza ya mwaka wowote tangu mwaka 2006. Idadi ya vifo katika barabarani nchini Marekani imeongezeka kwa zaidi ya asilimia 10 katika miaka kumi iliyopita, hata ingawa imepungua katika nchi nyingi zilizoendelea. Katika Umoja wa Ulaya, ambao idadi ya watu ni theluthi moja kubwa kuliko Amerika, vifo vya barabarani vilipungua kwa asilimia 36 kati ya 2010 na 2020, hadi 18,800. Mwelekeo huo wa kushuka si wa bahati mbaya: Washauri wa Ulaya wamewasukuma watengenezaji wa magari kutengeneza magari salama zaidi kwa watembea kwa miguu na waendesha baiskeli, na serikali mara kwa mara hubadilisha miundo ya barabara baada ya ajali ili kupunguza uwezekano wa kutokea tena. Lakini katika Marekani, jukumu la usalama barabarani kwa kiasi kikubwa huanguka kwa mtu anayeketi nyuma ya gurudumu, au kuendesha baiskeli, au kuvuka barabara. Idara za usafiri za Marekani, mashirika ya kutekeleza sheria, na vyombo vya habari mara nyingi husema kwamba aksidenti nyingi - kwa kweli, asilimia 94 ya hizo, kulingana na takwimu zinazosambazwa sana - husababishwa tu na kosa la kibinadamu. Kulala na makosa ya watumiaji wa barabara kunamaanisha kwamba hakuna mtu mwingine angeweza kuzuia makosa hayo. Hii inawawezesha makampuni ya magari kugeuza umakini kutoka kwa maamuzi yao ya kuongeza uzito na urefu kwa SUVs na malori ambayo huunda sehemu kubwa ya mauzo ya magari, na inaruhusu wahandisi wa trafiki kuepuka uchunguzi kwa miundo ya hatari ya barabara. Sheria hiyo ya ujenzi itasaidia kuboresha usalama wa magari, ikiwa ni pamoja na teknolojia ya kuzuia watu waliolala na kunywa pombe kuendesha gari na vipimo bora vya ajali ili kukabiliana na hatari kwa watu walio nje ya gari. Hata hivyo, hata wakati serikali ya shirikisho inapojiandaa kutumia mamia ya mabilioni ya dola kwa ajili ya kazi za barabara, maoni ya msingi ya watu wa Marekani ya makosa ya vifo vya barabarani kama tu wingi wa makosa ya mtu binafsi yatabaki bila kurekebishwa. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika taarifa ya National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ya mwaka 2015, ""Kwa sababu ya hatari ya ajali, ambayo ni tukio la mwisho katika mlolongo wa sababu ya ajali, ilipewa dereva katika 94% ya ajali,"" na ""Kwa sababu ya hatari ya ajali, ambayo ni sababu ya ajali, haipaswi kutafsiriwa kama sababu ya ajali.""" Kiwango hicho kinashuka hadi 25 wakati barabara inakaribia mji, lakini mistari ya barabara haipunguki (ambayo kwa kawaida ingewalazimisha dereva kutumia breki), na ishara ya pekee inayotangaza kikomo cha chini cha kasi imezuiwa kwa sehemu. Kwa sababu ya kutojua mabadiliko ya gari, dereva anaendelea kusafiri kwa mwendo wa 40. Anapokuwa akiingia mjini, msafiri mmoja anavuka barabara katika makutano yasiyo na taa za kusimamisha gari. Dereva anamgonga msafiri. Kwa ufafanuzi wa serikali ya shirikisho, "sababu muhimu" kwa ajili ya ajali hii hypothetical - tukio la mwisho katika mlolongo causal - ni kosa lililofanywa na dereva ambaye alikuwa kasi wakati wa mgongano. Karibu kwa hakika, polisi watamshika kuwa na hatia. Lakini hiyo hupuuza mambo mengine mengi: hali ya hewa yenye ukungu ilificha maono ya dereva; uhandisi wa trafiki wenye kasoro ulishindwa kumlazimisha kupunguza kasi alipokaribia makutano; uzito wa SUV ulifanya nguvu ya mgongano iwe kubwa zaidi kuliko ile ya sedan. Kwa mujibu wa ripoti ya NHTSA ya mwaka 2015, idadi ya watu waliohusika katika tukio hilo ilikuwa ni ndogo. Lakini kukataa kwao kwamba "sababu muhimu" ya ajali si sawa na "sababishi" kwa kiasi kikubwa kimepuuzwa. "Kama ilivyoelezwa kwenye tovuti ya shirika hilo, ""94% ya ajali mbaya ni kwa sababu ya makosa ya binadamu"" na ""kujaribu kupata sababu moja ya ajali ni mbinu ya msingi ya usalama barabarani, lakini inasaidia sana kutekeleza trafiki ya Marekani na kuzuia ajali.""" Baada ya mgongano, polisi huwasilisha ripoti, wakiona ni nani aliyevunja sheria za barabarani na kwa ujumla kupuuza mambo kama vile barabara na muundo wa gari. Kampuni za bima, pia, zimepangwa kumfanya mtu awe na daraka. Madereva si wale tu wanaokabili hukumu kama hizo. Baada ya ajali, msafiri anaweza kushtakiwa kwa kuvuka barabara ambayo haina njia ya kuvuka (hata kama moja ya karibu ni robo ya maili mbali), na baiskeli inaweza kushtakiwa kwa kutovaa kofia ya chuma (ingawa njia ya baiskeli iliyolindwa ingezuia ajali kabisa). Habari za habari zinaimarisha hadithi hizi, na hadithi zinazohusiana na dereva ambaye alikuwa akiendesha kwa kasi au msafiri ambaye alivuka dhidi ya taa. "Hata hivyo, waandishi wa habari wamekuwa wakitangaza ""mstari wa asilimia 94"" kwenye vyombo vya habari kama vile The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, na Washington Post." Taasisi za utafiti kama vile Chuo Kikuu cha Michigan na Chuo Kikuu cha Idaho pia zimefanya hivyo. Hata waziri wa zamani wa usafiri Elaine Chao amesaidia kuanzisha mvurugo, kama vile idara za usafiri katika majimbo kama vile Illinois, Utah, na Texas. "Mstari wa asilimia 94 ni kumbukumbu ya mara kwa mara katika karibu kila mkutano wa serikali [idara ya usafiri] ambao nimewahi kuhudhuria, "Jennifer Homendy, mwenyekiti wa Bodi ya Kitaifa ya Usalama wa Usafiri, aliniambia. "Jeff Cranson, msemaji wa Michigan DOT, alisema katika podcast yake ya 2019 kwamba ""kosa la kibinadamu linawajibika kwa zaidi ya asilimia 95 ya ajali,"" na Timothy Gates, profesa wa uhandisi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Michigan, alijibu, ""Ninaweza kukubaliana na hilo, kuna ajali chache sana zinazosababishwa na kasoro ya gari au barabara, nyingi ni makosa ya kibinadamu.""" Na kama buck huacha na dereva, watengenezaji wa magari kuhisi shinikizo kidogo kufanya kuokoa maisha vipengele vya usalama kiwango katika mifano yao - ambayo wengi wao hawana. Kwa mfano, mwaka jana, gazeti la Consumer Reports liligundua kwamba mtu mmoja angelipa dola 2,500 kwa ajili ya mfumo wa kugundua sehemu za kipofu. Teknolojia ya kugundua watembea kwa miguu ilikuwa ya kawaida kwenye mifano 13 ya magari 15 maarufu zaidi, lakini haipatikani kwenye moja na sehemu ya kifurushi cha hiari cha $ 16,000 kwenye nyingine. Kwa kuwa wajibu unagharimu wale waliohusika moja kwa moja katika ajali, haishangazi kwamba juhudi nyingi za usalama barabarani huzunguka kampeni za elimu, kwa kudhani kwamba ikiwa watu wangekuwa waangalifu zaidi, sote tungekuwa sawa. Wakala wa NHTSA na DOTs za jimbo hutumia mamilioni ya dola katika programu hizi, lakini faida zao zinaonekana kuwa za hali ya chini. "Wafanyakazi wa serikali wanaona jukumu lao kama kujaribu kuwashawishi watu barabarani kufanya maamuzi ya busara, ""Seth LaJeunesse, msaidizi mwandamizi wa utafiti katika Chuo Kikuu cha North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, aliniambia." <unk>Vaa mkanda wa usalama, usiwe mlevi unapoendesha gari, na utoe ishara ifaavyo. Nadhani ni makosa. Baada ya yote, ni nani atakaye kushughulikia matatizo ya muundo, ikiwa ni watu tu kuwa wapumbavu huko barabarani? Kwa sasa, wazo kwamba kosa la binadamu husababisha karibu ajali zote ni hatua muhimu ya mazungumzo kwa watengenezaji wa teknolojia ya magari ya kujitegemea, ambayo inadhani itazuia makosa kama hayo. Kampuni kama vile General Motors, Google na Aurora, ambazo ni kampuni mpya, zimetangaza takwimu za asilimia 94 katika vifaa vya uendelezaji, taarifa za waandishi wa habari, na hata faili za SEC. "Mwanasayansi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Carnegie Mellon, Phil Koopman, alisema: ""Mifumo ya kujitegemea itafanya makosa yao wenyewe barabarani." Hata hivyo, hakutarajia kwamba magari ya kibinafsi yatapunguza ajali kwa zaidi ya asilimia 50, hata katika hali nzuri zaidi. Na siku zijazo za kuendesha magari kwa uhuru bado ni angalau miongo kadhaa mbali, ikidokeza kwamba AVs hazitabadilisha idadi inayoongezeka ya vifo barabarani Marekani kwa miaka mingi ijayo - ikiwa watafanya hivyo. Kwa kuwa sheria ya miundombinu imepitishwa, serikali ya Marekani ina nafasi ya kufikiria upya mbinu na ujumbe wake. "Kupuuza hadithi ya hatari ya asilimia 94 ingekuwa mwanzo mzuri; kupunguza mkazo wa kampeni zisizo na maana za usalama wa trafiki pia zingesaidia.""" Kuhamasisha mashirika ya usafiri ya serikali na ya mitaa - sio tu utekelezaji wa sheria - kuchunguza ajali, ambayo Jiji la New York sasa linafanya, ingekuwa bora zaidi. """Kile tunachohitaji zaidi ni kuchunguza tena jinsi watengenezaji wa magari, wahandisi wa trafiki, na wanachama wa jamii - pamoja na umma wa kusafiri - pamoja wanawajibika kwa kuokoa baadhi ya maelfu ya maisha yanayopotea kila mwaka kwenye barabara za Amerika." Kumlaumu kosa la kibinadamu peke yake ni rahisi, lakini huweka Wamarekani wote katika hatari kubwa zaidi.