Drink or Drive—Pick One

By Member Jennifer Homendy

The United States continues to be one of the world’s leaders in drunk-driving deaths. One of the reasons for this shameful distinction is that US drivers are allowed to operate motor vehicles with more alcohol in their system than is permitted in most other countries.

One state in the nation is an exception to this rule: Utah, which became the first state to lower the threshold for drunk driving from .08 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to .05 percent BAC, joining more than 100 countries that have a limit of .05 percent or lower. In 1983, Utah was also the first state to lead the nation in lowering the threshold from .10 percent to .08 percent BAC.

Currently, California and Michigan legislators are considering whether to adopt a .05‑percent law that will save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of life-altering injuries over the coming years. On April 3, NTSB Safety Advocate Leah Walton added her voice to the growing chorus calling for a lower BAC limit in California, for the same reasons that I spoke in favor of a similar law in Michigan on March 20, and for the same reasons that the NTSB advocated in support of Utah’s .05 law, which went into effect December 30, 2018. (New York is also considering such a move.) All three laws satisfy our 2013 safety recommendation to lower the legal BAC limit to .05 percent or lower. All three laws will separate drinking from driving, and, by doing so, all three laws will save lives.

NTSB Member Jennifer Homendy

NTSB Safety Advocate Leah Walton

Our .05-percent BAC limit safety recommendation was adopted in our safety study, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving. Numerous other studies, including a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, have reached the same conclusion: .05‑percent limits save lives.

Let me be clear: we aren’t trying to stop people from drinking; we’re working to stop people from drinking and driving. Our goal is to save lives, and our concerns are justified. In the past 10 years, more than 100,000 people have died in alcohol-involved crashes in the United States.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10,874 people died in driving-under-the-influence crashes in 2017, the last full year on record. Clearly, .08-percent limits just aren’t working.

Reducing the legal BAC limit for driving is a broad deterrent that lowers the incidence of crashes and crash deaths at all BAC levels, not just those in the narrow range between .05 and .079 percent. It’s estimated that lowering the legal BAC limit in every state would likely reduce the number of fatal alcohol-related crashes by 11 percent, potentially saving up to 1,790 lives a year.

Other safety organizations have done their own great work in support of a .05-percent or lower BAC limit. The World Health Organization; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety; the National Safety Council; and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have all supported our safety recommendation. A .05-percent BAC limit is also supported by a majority of US motorists—63 percent, in fact, according to the AAA 2015 Traffic Safety Culture Index.

It’s noteworthy that even countries with higher alcohol consumption per capita than the United States set their BAC limits at .05 percent or lower. It’s not that people in these countries don’t drink; they just don’t drink and drive.

Growing up, my parents taught me not to drink and drive. It was just that simple. I never once heard anyone tell me it was OK to “only drive a little drunk.” My parents never lectured me that I could drink and drive as long as I kept my BAC below a certain limit.

And that’s the goal of the .05-percent movement—separating drinking from driving. You can drink responsibly. You can drive responsibly. But no one can responsibly drink and drive.

Our goal is not to propose a new target number of drinks to have before driving; rather, it’s for people to plan to either drink or drive. But never to do both.

 

Eyes on The Road, Hands on the Wheel, Mind on One Task

By Nicholas Worrell, Chief, Safety Advocacy Division

On April 3, I represented the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) at an event kicking off Distracted Driving Awareness Month and California Teen Driver Safety Week, in Sacramento. I challenged California to lead the nation in acting on NTSB’s 2011 recommendation to ban the nonemergency driver use of portable electronic devices that do not support the driving task. So far, many states have banned driver use of handheld phones, and all but three have banned texting and driving. But none go as far as our recommendation demands.

NTSB Chief of Safety Advocacy, Nicholas Worrell (at podium) addresses media at the April 3, 2019, Distracted Driving Awareness Month kick-off event in Sacramento, CA.

Since the Sacramento event, I’ve spoken about the recommendation to radio and television outlets in the Golden State, some with call-in segments, and I’ve read the comments on news websites covering my kickoff remarks. I’ve learned a lot about what most troubles (and impresses) people about the proposal:

• Many gave examples of their experiences with dangerous distracted driving behavior on the road and supported the safety recommendation.
• Some pointed out their personal ability to multitask (an ability at odds with the science of distraction).
• Some disparaged the danger compared to other distractions (eg, people eating or putting on their makeup).
• Some asked how the law can be enforced. Indeed, this is certainly a challenge, but one that could be addressed with technology, especially if device-makers get on board. California already bans all nonemergency use of these devices for young drivers and bus drivers, so there’s precedent.
• Finally, many pointed to technology solutions, and I believe that they’re spot-on. In fact, in response to the same crash that spawned our proposed cell phone ban, we also issued a recommendation encouraging the Consumer Electronics Association to work with its members to disable drivers’ cell phones while driving (except for emergency use, and for use in support of the driving task). We would love to have a meaningful dialogue with device manufacturers through the CEA.

When you talk on a cell phone or become engaged with phone operations, your mind is not on the driving task. Have you ever shushed a passenger while you try to decide if you’re at your freeway exit? How about missed a turn or blown past a stopped school bus while having a conversation on your Bluetooth-enabled, hands-free smartphone? It turns out that we can’t really multitask. We slow down as we disengage from one task and engage in another. It even takes us longer to disengage and reengage our visual focus, to say nothing of completing a competing cognitive task. To experience this lag, just run through the first 10 letters of the alphabet out loud as quickly as you can. Then do the same with the numbers 1 to 10. Then try them together: A-1, B-2, and so on. Do you slow down when “multitasking”? Most people do.

People are quick to admit that manual and visual distraction can cause crashes, but few understand that cognitive distraction can be just as significant.

The NTSB believes that California should apply its cell-phone ban for bus drivers and novice drivers to the general driver population. We also believe that California is the perfect state to lead the charge to develop technology that will help end this deadly problem.

As we learn more about the science of distraction and distracted driving, it becomes more and more obvious that, as distractions are eliminated, Californian lives will be saved.

Episode 25 – Adam Gerhardt

In this episode of Behind-the-Scene @ NTSB, we have a conversation with Adam Gerhardt, an Air Safety Investigator in the NTSB Office of Aviation Safety. Adam shares with us how he got interested in aviation and the journey he took to get to the NTSB.

Get the latest episode on Apple Podcasts , on Google Play, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast platform.

To catch up on past episodes and to find more ways to listen visit: https://www.blubrry.com/behind_the_scene_ntsb/

If you have questions about the podcast, or ideas for future topics, feel free to email us at SafetyAdvocacy@NTSB.gov

NTSB’s Role in Marine Accident Investigations

By Captain James Scheffer, Strategic Advisor, NTSB Office of Marine Safety

I’m often asked how the NTSB chooses which marine accidents to investigate, and what role the US Coast Guard (USCG) plays in our investigations. I had the same question when I first joined the NTSB’s Office of Marine Safety more than 20 years ago. The NTSB has specific authority under the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations to investigate “major marine casualties.” These are accidents involving vessels that result in one or more of the following:

• The loss of six or more lives.
• The loss of a mechanically propelled vessel of 100 or more gross tons.
• Property damage initially estimated as $500,000 or more.
• Serious threat, as determined by the USCG Commandant and concurred with by the NTSB Chairman, to life, property, or the environment by hazardous materials.

Our authority to investigate covers major marine accidents on US waters or those involving US-flagged vessels worldwide. We also have the authority to investigate casualties involving public (owned by the United States) and nonpublic vessels. In these casualties the threshold is defined by at least one fatality or damages of $75,000 or greater. Our task in these investigations, whether a major marine casualty or a public and non-public casualty, is to determine the probable cause of the accident and identify  safety recommendations that will prevent similar events in the future. We also investigate, independently or with other government agencies, marine accidents in which the United States is a substantially interested state (SIS), according to the International Maritime Organization’s “Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents.”

So, where does the USCG fit in? The USCG conducts preliminary investigations of all marine accidents, then notifies us when an accident qualifies as a major marine casualty. Unlike in other modes of transportation, such as aviation, where the NTSB leads the investigation, the USCG typically takes the lead in marine casualty investigations. Under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the NTSB and USCG, however, the NTSB may become the lead federal agency for the investigation, depending on the circumstances. This may occur when there is a significant marine accident that is a subset of a major marine casualty and is defined in the MOU as the following:

• The loss of three or more lives on a commercial passenger vessel.
• Loss of life or serious injury to 12 or more persons on any commercial vessel.
• The loss of a mechanically propelled commercial vessel of 1,600 or more gross tons.
• Any marine casualty with loss of life involving a highway, bridge, railroad, or other shore side structure.
• Serious threat, as determined by the USCG Commandant and concurred with by the NTSB Chairman, or their designees, to life, property, or the environment by hazardous materials.
• Significant safety issues, as determined by the Commandant and concurred with by the Chairman, or their designees, relating to Coast Guard marine safety functions.

If a marine casualty meets any of the above significant marine accident criterion the NTSB may elect to be the lead federal investigative agency.

In marine casualties involving a public (federal government) and a non-public vessel, if the vessel is Coast Guard the NTSB must investigate and be the lead federal agency. With casualties involving other public and non-public vessels, in most cases, the NTSB investigates as the lead federal agency.

The Office of Marine Safety typically investigates 30 to 40 marine accidents per year meeting the above criteria, and we do so with a staff of only 21 people, including investigators, writers, support staff and supervisors/managers. To get an overview of the Office of Marine Safety’s work, take a look at our Safer Seas Digest, which can be found on our ntsb.gov website, and summarizes our recent accident investigations and findings.

 

Eliminate Distractions

By Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg

The NTSB has investigated distraction-linked crashes in all modes of transportation. Our 2017 distracted driving roundtable, “Act to End Deadly Distraction,” made one thing very clear:

We don’t feel these losses in a statistical table. We feel them at the dinner table. We also don’t call them “accidents” because they are totally predictable.

More than 100 people die every day on our roads and highways, nine or ten of them per day in distraction-involved crashes alone. More than 1,000 people per day—391,000 in one year—are injured in distraction-involved crashes. And it’s certain that this number is greatly under-counted. Many of these injuries are life-altering, disfiguring and permanently crippling. My apologies for being graphic – but ask anyone who’s been involved whether the distraction that caused the crash was worth it.

Listen to stories told in our 2017 roundtable by survivor advocates. Or, simply ask around. It won’t take long to find someone with a story of a friend, business colleague or loved one lost to a distracted driver.

What too many of these crashes have in common is a portable electronic device – the universal cell phone. When the NTSB made its first recommendation about driver distraction by “wireless telephone” in 2003, cell phones were primarily just that: tools for making voice calls. Although some cell phones had keypads, the word “texting” does not appear in that early report.

In 2011, the NTSB recommended that the states ban non-emergency driver use of all portable electronic devices that did not support the driving task. To date, no state’s laws have gone that far. Why?

And since drivers look to the law for guidance, no state’s drivers have gone so far as to voluntarily stop driving while visually, manually, and/or cognitively distracted. Why?

Now, a second 2011 NTSB safety recommendation is becoming steadily more feasible: Safety Recommendation H-11-47. We recommended that CTIA—the wireless association, and the Consumer Electronics Association, encourage the development of technology that can disable portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion (with the ability to permit emergency use of the device while the vehicle is in motion, and the capability of identifying occupant seating position so that passengers can use their devices).

Unfortunately, the recommendation has not been adopted, despite smartphones and apps that will allow the driver to opt out of calls and texts while driving. So, why hasn’t there been more action on this recommendation?

The best safety solution is always to design out the problem. Rather than just encourage people to do the right thing, don’t give them the opportunity to do the wrong thing… and possibly take a life or maim someone.

Don’t misunderstand, we endorse a solid tech solution, but such a solution won’t work in every situation. It must be a belt-and-suspenders effort, together with the familiar three-legged stool of highway safety (awareness, tough laws, and high-visibility enforcement).

This year many more loved ones will be lost to distraction, but surveys tell us that most people think distracted driving is a bad idea. Until, that is, we have to put our own phone down. Hypocritical? It couldn’t possibly happen to me – I’m too good a driver! The numbers prove otherwise.

Time, tide and tech wait for no man or woman, to coin a phrase. By the end of today a thousand more families will be dealing with tremendous loss and pain.

This month, the NTSB will host its third Roundtable on Distracted Driving: Perspectives from the Trucking Industry. During the roundtable, members of the trucking community, victim advocacy groups, the business community and legislators will come together to discuss the problem of distracted driving and potential countermeasures. We also hope to hear about new efforts to close Safety Recommendation H-11-47.

To kickoff Distracted Driving Awareness Month, on April 3, we will also host, with Impact Teen Drivers and the California Highway Patrol, the Western States Teen Safe Driving Roundtable to talk about the state of teen driving and the proven strategies for preventing teen-driving related crashes.  Now, what are you going to do about it?