The #InMyFeelings Challenge: Don’t Drive Distracted

By Nicholas Worrell, Chief, NTSB Safety Advocacy Division

Here’s a reminder we thought we’d never have to give: Don’t jump out of a moving vehicle to dance in the street.

Recently, the #InMyFeelings challenge introduced a new safety challenge to road users. It began with a fan dancing to the Drake song “In My Feelings” and posting a video of his moves. Then, fans began hopping out of cars as they rolled along in neutral to dance to the lyrics “Keke, do you love me? Are you riding?” Often the driver is the one doing the recording. Sometimes the driver was even the one who got out and danced.

Believe it or not, the NTSB was ready for the #InMyFeelings challenge. Sort of.

Driver distraction has been a target of our Most Wanted List (MWL) for years, and just taking a video while driving invites tragedy. Thousands die, and hundreds of thousands are injured in distraction-related crashes every year. This specific trend is too recent—and, with any luck, will be too short-lived—for us to learn something new by investigating any crashes, injuries, or fatalities it may cause. However, the unnecessary risks inherent in the challenge should not simply be overlooked.

Driver distraction features prominently in this viral challenge, but the more obvious risk is the poor decision to hop out of a moving vehicle to dance. Although “Bad Decision Making” is not on our MWL, we have seen a variety of crashes attributable to making poor choices. We have also studied the particular challenges faced by teen drivers, and we have long focused on graduated driver licensing laws in part to gradually introduce young and novice drivers to the roadway environment. Now, it appears that certain drivers and passengers are intent on being introduced to that environment in a more literal way.

NTSB investigators see needless suffering in crashes that are caused by everything from fatigue to alcohol and other drug impairment, from mechanical failures to poorly maintained road markings and signs. Although we can’t undo a roadway tragedy for the victims, we can improve safety for the world that they far too often leave behind. In addition to our rigorous investigations and carefully considered recommendations, we also have to look at potential precursors to crashes, like a viral dance challenge, to try to stop tragedies before they occur.

My division, Safety Advocacy, educates teens on safety risks they may not have known about or understood as dangerous. We are passionate about driver safety because we know the facts: Motor vehicle crashes take more than 37,000 American lives each year. Almost all roadway deaths are preventable, but sometimes the paths to prevention are complex, requiring advancements in law enforcement, technology, or the roadway environment. Preventing death or injury from #doingtheShiggy is comparatively simple: Don’t jump out of a moving car for a meme. That’s it. It’s foolish, it puts other road users at risk, and, it’s an excellent way to suffer road rash, legal penalties, or worse. By posting such a video, you’re providing evidence not just of your dance moves, but of any laws you may be breaking. In a recent roundtable on distracted driving, we heard survivor advocates’ ideas about getting tougher on drivers using their phones (like the driver-cameraperson in this challenge). Part of getting tougher includes increasing enforcement of distracted driving laws. If your local law enforcement agency is among the many cracking down on distracted drivers, the last thing you want to do is post evidence of you and your friends breaking the law.

Avoid becoming—or causing—an #InMyFeelings fatality. All you have to do is not jump out of a moving vehicle. Crashes happen fast, sometimes in the blink of an eye. Driving distracted is dangerous and can be deadly. No call, no text, no update is worth a human life. No dance is either. In my feelings, that’s a pretty simple ask.

3D Modeling: A Valuable Investigative Tool

By Michael Bauer

On February 10, 2018, an air tour helicopter descended into a canyon wash and collided with terrain while on approach to land at Quartermaster landing zone in the Grand Canyon near Peach Springs, Arizona. As part of this ongoing investigation, NTSB engineers needed a three-dimensional (3D) digital model of the accident site and surrounding terrain to thoroughly understand the terrain features in the local area. Although the main effort involved the use of a FARO laser scanner to create the 3D model, the NTSB small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) team recognized an opportunity to exercise our sUAS imagery-collection capabilities using photogrammetry and sUAS in a challenging environment to support this investigation and allow for a comparison of the data gathered from the two techniques for future investigations.

Excerpt from Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart (FAA)

Since 2016, the NTSB has used sUASs, or drones, to create orthomosaic maps of wreckage sites and provide 3D digital models of terrain and vehicles for use by investigators in all transportation modes. Recently, we’ve launched the drone team to rail accidents (including the Hyndman, Pennsylvania, and Alexandria, Virginia derailments) highway crashes (including the Amtrak grade crossing collision with a refuse truck in Crozet, Virginia), and aviation accidents (including the crash of a cargo airplane in Charleston, West Virginia; the rejected takeoff and runway excursion at Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti, Michigan; and multiple general aviation accidents at sites across the country). None of these missions, however, presented terrain challenges like those in the Grand Canyon.

Because the Grand Canyon is a combination of National Park Service and tribal lands, planning for the mission started weeks in advance. We needed to obtain permission from various tribal and governmental entities to operate a drone within that airspace and the special flight rules area (SFRA). The area is heavily used by numerous helicopter tour operators in the region, so planning involved coordinating with and notifying the various local operators of our intended sUAS mission. Without the support of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Hualapai Nation, the National Park Service, and Papillion Helicopters, this mission wouldn’t have left the ground.

After we received the appropriate approvals, we assembled in Boulder City, Nevada, to load a helicopter for the short trip into the canyon. Unlike other sUAS missions I’ve conducted, the remoteness of the canyon location introduced many challenges. For example, at the site, there were no electrical outlets or a generator, so we needed to plan the mission carefully in advance to ensure that it could be completed within the flight time enabled by the available batteries—recharging was not an option. Also, cellular coverage (including wifi) was nonexistent; thus, we had to access the Internet for the ground station software before departing for the canyon. In addition, when we use the sUAS to map an accident site, we use ground control points (GCPs) that we typically mark with paint. However, out of respect for the sacred land of the Hualapai Nation where the operation took place, we instead used lightweight, removable targets as GCPs. In total, I took 65 pounds of gear into the canyon to support the sUAS operation.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We conducted the sUAS flight early in the morning in light wind conditions suitable for drone flying and low temperatures, which was welcome compared to the triple-digit temperatures expected later in the day. We conducted our flights concurrent with the laser‑scanning effort in the canyon wash. As remote pilot in command (RPIC), I arranged for our helicopter pilot to work with me as the visual observer (VO) for the mission. The VO monitored the local traffic frequency for inbound and outbound traffic and relayed information back to me. During a few flights, I paused the mission to land the drone to ensure safe separation from tour helicopters. We accomplished the mission in just over an hour of sUAS flying time, which included a 12-minute, 10-acre mapping mission. The effort provided a detailed 3D model of the canyon wash for the engineers and stunning visual imagery of the local terrain area. The data are currently being analyzed by investigative staff.

NTSB sUAS flying in the Grand Canyon

Through this investigation and others, we’ve found that the ability to create 3D models of accident scenes is a valuable tool in the investigator’s tool box. Moreover, the ability of the sUAS to provide the imagery needed for these models in unique, complex environments in a short time and with low acquisition cost will aid our investigators for years to come. The NTSB sUAS team continues to explore the possibilities of sUAS imagery collection within the envelope of safe drone operations to further understand the capabilities and limitations of the technologies as they relate to the agency’s mission.

Michael Bauer is an aerospace engineering investigator in the NTSB Office of Aviation Safety.

Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving – Time to Walk the Talk

By Kenny Bragg

In 2016, 10,497 motor vehicle crash fatalities involved drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 g/dL or higher; that means almost 3 of every 10 lives lost on our highways involved impairment. What’s more, every life lost as a result of alcohol-impaired driving could have been saved, because deaths resulting from impaired driving are 100% preventable when the driver chooses to call a cab, hand the keys to a sober friend, or take public transportation to get home.

I’m a retired police officer, and, during my time in the traffic enforcement division, I encountered countless impaired drivers and investigated numerous impaired-driving crashes.  I evaluated and arrested drivers impaired at all BAC levels.

The current per se BAC limit of 0.08 percent gives the public a false belief that lower BACs are safe when, in reality, impairment begins with the first drink. Many drivers don’t realize that even low levels of alcohol can degrade skills and increase crash risk. This is why, 5 years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that states decrease legal per se BAC levels to 0.05 percent—or even lower. “End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment in Transportation” is one item on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements. This list, released biennially, includes transportation safety goals that have a strong chance of being achieved if given a good, hard push by the NTSB, likeminded organizations, and states. We believe that the bold move to lower the legal per se BAC limit will save lives and decrease the number of highway deaths each year.

Many ad campaigns remind us that “buzzed driving is drunk driving,” but how can we support that message with laws and enforcement? About 100 countries around the world already have a .05 BAC law. In fact, although people consume more alcohol, per capita, in countries with .05 BAC laws, they are less likely to die from impaired driving. In 2012, Alberta, Canada, passed an administrative penalty law that imposes tougher sanctions on drivers with BACs of .05 to .08 percent. Between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, Alberta saw a decline in alcohol-related fatalities compared to the same period in each of the previous 5 years.

Some advocates support a .05 limit but believe we should focus only on solutions targeting high-BAC drivers, or on emerging technology that prevents impaired drivers from operating a vehicle. However, a .05 BAC law is a broad deterrent that decreases the number of impaired drivers on the road at all BAC levels—high and low. Along with alcohol interlocks and enhanced enforcement efforts—which we have also recommended—a .05 BAC limit would help prevent drivers with high BACs from getting behind the wheel.

Many peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that lowering the legal BAC limit would indeed prevent impaired-driving crashes, and, according to a AAA Foundation survey, 63% of Americans would support a .05 BAC law. However, only one US state has taken the bold step to pass such a lifesaving law, which would encourage people to find other forms of transportation when they’ve been drinking. Utah passed a 0.05 BAC law in 2017, which will go into effect on December 30, 2018.

Some opponents argue that lowering the per se BAC level will be too complicated, and that law enforcement will struggle to accurately evaluate lower BAC levels during field sobriety tests. I was an active law enforcement officer when the legal per se BAC level was lowered from 0.10 to 0.08.  As with the current recommendation to lower the legal BAC, opponents predicted that lowering the BAC to .08 would result in arrests that were un-prosecutable, and that responsible drinkers would be unjustly punished. However, once the law was implemented, agencies actually experienced a decline in arrests at all BAC levels.

In these days of advanced technology and connectivity, if you have a phone, you have a sober ride. There is no excuse for driving after drinking.

Kenny Bragg is a Senior Human Performance Highway Investigator for the NTSB. He is a retired accident reconstruction investigator from the Prince George’s County Police Department (MD).