Tag Archives: Most Wanted List

When Safety Should Take the Back Seat

By Vice Chairman T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, PhD, MPH

Image collage for strengthen occupant protection Most Wanted List Issue.As a public health professional, I have spent my career working in the United States and internationally to prevent injuries and deaths. At the NTSB, one of my primary roles is to advocate for the changes needed to prevent transportation accidents.

Significant advancements have been made to improve the safety of occupants in the front seats of passenger vehicles, including the development of advanced restraint and airbag systems, safer seat designs, and structural improvements to minimize injury due to intrusion. Today, 32 states have adopted legislation that requires front-seat passengers to use a seat belt, and we can celebrate that we have achieved a national daytime average seat-belt-use rate of 90 percent for front-seat passengers.

But what about rear seats? We have not seen similar technology advances in rear seats, and research shows that rear seat belt use is considerably lower, at 83 percent. How can research, engineering, and advocacy make an impact in increasing rear seat belt use?

In 2015, after decades of decline, the United States experienced the largest increase in motor vehicle crashes and resulting deaths. Another historic increase is expected for 2016.  In examining such a complex issue, we at the NTSB found ourselves asking the following: why aren’t people buckling up when they sit in the rear seat, and how can research, engineering, and advocacy increase rear seat belt use?

To answer these questions, we reached out to occupant protection experts drawn from the auto industry, the research community, safety advocates, and the government to participate in a workshop to help us find ways to strengthen occupant protection in the rear seat of passenger vehicles.

During the workshop, we discussed the current knowledge about rear seat occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and how these occupants utilize existing vehicle safety systems, such as seat belts.  We examined how the rear seat environment is different from the front, both in design and user demographics. The workshop also addressed advanced vehicle and emerging seat belt technologies, innovative seat designs, as well as areas of needed research and education.

Our workshop was designed to allow the sharing of experience and knowledge, as well as to encourage participants to collaborate on inventive strategies. As a result, in the detailed summary we are publishing today, participants identified short- and long-term goals that will require a greater amount of collaboration, engineering, design, and advocacy to achieve.

Together with researchers, automobile manufacturers, legislators, regulators, and safety advocates, we are identifying practical, real-world applications and opportunities to make rear seats safer for everyone.

For more information about the workshop, presentations and the summary document visit https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2016_rss_WS.aspx.

Fahrenheit 1,100: Lithium Batteries in Aviation

By Robert L. Sumwalt

There is no place for a fire on an airplane. And if there is a fire, it should not overwhelm fire-suppression equipment.

No-brainer, right?

Poster image for Most Wated List issue area Ensure the Safe Shipment of Hazardous MaterialsHere is another no-brainer: lightweight, portable energy is necessary for our modern way of life. Smartphones, laptops, power tools, and even some vehicles depend on lithium batteries. The ubiquitous nature of these modern electronic devices has, in turn, increased the need to ship the batteries that power them.

The same high-energy density that makes lithium batteries such a great way to store electricity can also introduce a fire hazard. A fault in the battery, such as a flaw in the manufacturing process, can cause a fire. Even if a fire starts elsewhere, a lithium battery makes for formidable fuel. When a fire spreads from cell to cell within a lithium-ion battery, it can burn at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

While international air regulations prohibit bulk shipment of lithium batteries on passenger airplanes, the NTSB investigated one cargo aircraft fire in the U.S., and we participated in two foreign-led accident investigations of cargo aircraft where lithium battery fires were suspected.

In late 2010, UPS flight 006 crashed minutes after takeoff from Dubai, UAE. The crew reported an onboard fire but was unable to land their 747 before fire consumed the aircraft. Both crewmembers lost their lives, and the aircraft and cargo was destroyed. The investigation found that a large fire that developed in palletized cargo on the main deck caused the crash. This cargo consisted of consignments of mixed cargo that included a significant number of lithium-type batteries and other combustible materials. The fire escalated rapidly into a catastrophic uncontained fire. The hazardous smoke and fumes entered the cockpit and upper deck simultaneously, obscuring the crew’s view and creating a toxic environment.

Ten months later, Asiana Airlines flight 991, a 747 cargo flight, crashed on its way from Incheon, South Korea, to Shanghai, China. The two pilots on board the aircraft died. The NTSB assisted Korea’s Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) in investigating the crash. The ARAIB determined that a cargo fire that developed on or near two pallets containing dangerous goods (hazardous materials), including hybrid-electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries and flammable liquids, caused the crash. The ARAIB could not pinpoint the cause of the fire, but it determined that the flammable materials and lithium-ion batteries that were loaded together were a contributing factor.

This year, we recommended that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) take action in response to the 2011 crash. We asked PHMSA to take the following steps:

PHMSA has suggested other actions that could also meet our intent. Whatever solution

PHMSA develops, U.S. aviation cannot ignore this potential hazard.

Thankfully, lithium battery failures are rare, and new research and meaningful efforts are underway to make them rarer still. On April 11 and 12, 2013, we conducted a public forum on lithium battery safety. Since then, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in conjunction with the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, has established a joint government–industry working group. The group is developing ways to make lithium battery fires less likely in aviation and to reduce the consequences in case they do occur.

We have issued several other lithium battery-related safety recommendations to the FAA and PHMSA encouraging them to share critical safety lessons learned, implement mitigations, and conduct research into safety improvements. Other NTSB recommendations about the certification and testing of lithium batteries aim to make such fires less likely.

We continue to share our lithium battery investigation findings and advocate safety recommendations. We participate in the UL-initiated Battery Safety Council and attend industry outreach events and seminars, such as the NASA battery forum and seminars from the Knowledge Foundation.

Lithium batteries are not going away; they are far too useful. But we must ensure that each and every shipment of lithium batteries poses minimal safety risk. That is why our Most Wanted List calls on regulators and others to Ensure the Safe Shipment of Hazardous Materials, including lithium batteries in aviation.

#NoExcuses This New Year’s Eve

By Leah Walton 

By now, you likely have your New Year’s Eve plans in place. Maybe you’ll go to a big party. Perhaps you’ll meet friends at a local bar or host a small gathering at your house. Maybe you’ll just spend a quiet night in. But whatever your plan may be, if it involves alcohol or other drugs, it should also involve a sober ride home.

Most of us know someone whose life has been impacted by an impaired-driving crash. These accidents occur at an alarmingly high frequency and yet, they’re totally preventable.

Data show that impaired-driving crashes occur more frequently over weekends, on holidays, and at night. This New Year’s holiday falls on a weekend, making it likely that we’ll see a higher-than-usual number of impaired-driving crashes—a very tragic start to 2017.

impaired2According to a recent report by the National Safety Council, we can expect to see more than 360 crash fatalities over this 3-day New Year’s holiday period. According to a report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 40 percent of all fatalities during the Christmas and New Year holiday periods have occurred in crashes in which at least one of the drivers was alcohol impaired. That means that approximately 145 people could be killed from drunk driving over this New Year’s weekend.

Let’s not accept this gloomy statistic.

On the eve of 2017, there really are no excuses to operate a vehicle while impaired, or to travel in a vehicle operated by an impaired person. The truth is, impairment starts with the first drink. With the ability to easily find a ride with a few swipes of our phones, and the wide availability of public transportation and sober ride programs on nights when drunk driving crashes are at their highest, there’s no reason for anyone to drive impaired.

Since the 1980s, transportation safety advocates have been working tirelessly through education programs, increased enforcement, strengthened legislation, and emerging technology, such as breathalyzers, to stop impaired driving. And, without a doubt, improvements have been made. In the early ‘80s, more than 21,000 people were killed each year as a result of alcohol-impaired driving. In 2015, that number was down to about 10,265. Lives have been saved because of improvements in safety culture and safety technology.

However, even with that improvement, every impaired driving death is still unacceptable, because, in the end, it’s a decision, not an accident.

No one goes out on New Year’s Eve expecting to die or be injured in an impaired-driving crash. New Year’s Eve is about celebrating the close of one year and welcoming the hopes of a new year ahead. Everyone has the ability to experience the new year when they make plans to get home safely, whether that means driving sober or designating a sober driver.

impairedIt is our hope at NTSB that everyone will make it home safely and that no one will have to start the new year off with a phone call that a loved one was killed in an impaired-driving crash. Let’s prove the statistics wrong, because, nowadays, there really are #NoExcuses for driving impaired.

Leah Walton is a safety advocate in NTSB’s Safety Advocacy Division.

 

NTSB Takes Safety Message to North Carolina’s Catawba County Youth

By Nicholas Worrell

Photo of Nicholas Worrell and students at NCNAACPWhen I asked the audience at the Catawba County Branch of the North Carolina NAACP in Maiden if they could identify the leading cause of death in teens, they replied with silence.

After waiting in vain for an answer, I told them. “Motor vehicle crashes,” I said, and explained that teens are 1.6 times more likely to die in motor vehicle crashes than adults.

NTSB Safety Advocate Stephanie Shaw and I were invited to this November 13 meeting by the chapter’s youth director, Lacolia Mungro, whose experiences driving an 18wheeler have encouraged her to spread the message about the risks of distracted driving.

I told the audience that 35,092 people died on US roadways in 2015, which is more than 10 times the population of Maiden. That number is on track to be even higher this year, which has prompted the NTSB to include issues like distracted driving, impaired driving, and fatigue on our 2017–2018 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements. We emphasize outreach to teens because that demographic, overrepresented in highway crashes, has more to lose than older drivers, considering the years of life ahead of them and the milestones they have yet to experience, like graduation, job success, marriage, and raising children. Missing out on those life experiences is a stiff price to pay because of one bad choice made early in life.

We also seek out opportunities to speak to teens because they represent tomorrow’s road safety culture. It’s essential to instill safe driving practices in teens who have not yet accumulated a lifetime of unsafe driving habits.

In 2014, 40,650 crashes in North Carolina involved teenagers; 95 were killed and 10,491 were injured. As I told the group in Maiden, a properly worn seat belt is the greatest protection against injury and death in a vehicle accident. Of those 95 teens killed in 2014, 33 were not wearing seat belts.

“No call, no text, no update is worth a human life,” I told the audience. Then I encouraged them to join our advocacy efforts by buckling up and turning off their phones or putting them out of reach, because no one should have to miss out on life because of one bad decision made in youth.

Nicholas Worrell is the Chief of NTSB’s Safety Advocacy division

Roundtable Review – Part 1: The latest on rail tank car safety

By Robert L. Sumwalt

 

Member Robert L. Sumwalt opens the Rail Tank Car Roundtable at the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center.
Member Robert L. Sumwalt opens the Rail Tank Car Roundtable at the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center.

I had the privilege of moderating a day-long NTSB roundtable pertaining to rail tank car safety on July 13, 2016, in which more than two dozen rail-car manufacturers and owners, union representatives, and transportation safety associations discussed the rail industry’s progress and challenges on implementing new federal safety standards for tank cars that carry flammable liquids. The event provided rail industry leaders an open forum to discuss the logistics of replacing the existing tank car fleet in flammable liquid service to meet new federally imposed deadlines, and to identify ways in which government and industry can overcome roadblocks they face to meeting those mandates.

The U.S Department of Transportation (DOT) is requiring shippers to address the oldest, higher risk tank cars first: DOT-111 tank cars – which historically have been the most common type of cars to carry crude oil and ethanol. Shippers using legacy DOT-111 tank cars to haul crude oil must decide to either retire or retrofit them to new standards by March 2018, at the latest. For the DOT-111 tank cars that haul ethanol, shippers have until May 2023.

The deadlines set by federal officials for compliance are more relaxed for newer, modified version of these tank cars, called CPC-1232s. Deadlines to get CPC-1232s out of service for shipping crude oil and ethanol (or retrofitted to meet DOT-117 standards) extend as far into the future as May 2025. For shipping other Class 3 flammable liquids, shippers have until May 2029.

DOT-117 tank cars are a safer means of transporting flammable liquids because these tank cars are less likely experience a puncture (and therefore, a product release) because of several safety specifications that DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars do not have.

Newly manufactured DOT-117 tank cars are built with a thicker shell that is nine-sixteenths of an inch thick, which is 28 percent thicker than legacy DOT-111 tank cars and most CPS-1232 cars. DOT-117 cars also have thermal and top fittings protection; an extra layer of 11 gauge (approximately 3 mm) steel surrounding the shell, known as a tank jacket; and full-height head shields, which add an extra one-half inch of protective steel on each end of the tank cars. Also, there is improved protection to the bottom outlet valve handle to guard against inadvertent opening during a derailment.

Two main points are relevant when considering whether shippers can meet these new deadlines. First, can tank car manufacturers supply enough cars to meet demand? We were encouraged to hear that manufacturers felt they could.

There are, however, more complex considerations on the demand side. With the recent decrease in domestic oil production, some in the industry see steep price tags for new and retrofitted cars as being prohibitive. “This is a game changer for shippers,” said Gabe Claypool, with Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., during the roundtable.

John Bryne, of the Railway Supply Institute, agreed. He said economic factors heavily influence the decision making process when it comes to the timing of the legacy tank car phase out. “Industry has done a good job at meeting voluntary improvements for better packaging, but more needs to be done. Also, there needs to be some sort of incentive for the shippers to act more quickly.”

Without those incentives, Bryne warned that progress toward swifter compliance with federal deadlines could be stifled, although the deadlines themselves can be met. This leads to the next point: one hurdle toward quick implementation of these needed changes are, in a sense, the deadlines themselves. With some of the due dates extending nine years or more, shippers and those who currently lease tank cars can wait several more years before the recommendations to phase out older tank cars become absolute law.

While these considerations may make sense from a business perspective, from the NTSB’s perspective, the sooner these changes are made, the better – a belief that is fueled by numerous accidents we have seen involving breached tank cars. In the past decade, there have been 28 significant accidents in the U.S. and Canada involving flammable liquids transported by rail, in which nearly 5 million gallons of crude oil and ethanol have spilled. In each of these accidents, legacy DOT-111 or CPC-1232 tank cars were used to transport flammable liquids. If past performance is a predictor of future performance, continuing to transport crude oil and ethanol in DOT-111 or CPC 1232 tank cars poses an unacceptable public risk.

Several roundtable participants expressed optimism that the deadlines could be met.

Robert Fronczak, assistant vice president of the American Association of Railroads, provided statistics showing the number of legacy DOT-111 tank cars in crude oil transportation has steadily decreased since 2013 – from a peak of more than 21,600 three years ago, to just 708 through the first quarter of this year.

Kevin Neels, Ph.D., a transportation and research consultant with The Brattle Group, stated those numbers are a sign industry is headed in the right direction. “A lot of the riskiest cars are going out of service. And that’s good. We need to continue to monitor this to ensure that risk-prone tank cars stay out of service. In due course, we’ll see a much safer fleet hauling these materials.”

In next week’s blog, we will discuss how the industry is monitoring its progress and the available options for meeting the earliest federal deadlines.

 

Robert L. Sumwalt is an NTSB Board Member.

Inspired by Tragedy to Make a Difference: One Millennial’s Story

Five years ago, the NTSB held its first event focused exclusively on teen driver safety. The goal was to save lives by empowering young people to develop and lead traffic safety education projects, support law enforcement efforts, and advocate for effective legislation to protect teen drivers. Ultimately, we want to help develop youth leaders to be ambassadors for safety.

At that first event, our NTSB safety advocates met an outgoing, driven young man named Rick who described to them why he became a youth ambassador for safety. As the NTSB does its part to celebrate Global Youth Traffic Safety Month, we wanted to share his story with you – in his own words:

I’m a Millennial, and I wear this as a badge of honor. There are hundreds of books, thousands of articles, and millions of opinions on how to best work with my unique generation. In ways, we’ve stumped our bosses because we aren’t motivated by traditional workplace incentives; instead, Millennials are driven by passion. We want to see the value in what we do. We want to know that our work is building to a better world.

As I catch up with friends from college, we spend a lot of time talking about our careers. Many are in the private sector, building apartment complexes or managing stock options; others are in education, working on Master’s degrees, or attending medical conferences. I talk about my deep love for transportation safety. “Rick, what exactly do you do?” is a common question (that some of my friends and even my mother are still trying to figure out). My answer is simple: I have the best job in the world. As the director of Strategic Partnerships for Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), I work to build SADD’s capacity at all levels in order to fulfill our mission and build meaningful, lasting relationships.

SADD was founded 35 years ago in the wake of a series of alcohol-related crashes that claimed several teen lives. The young people in Wayland, Massachusetts, rallied together to unite their voices and say “enough is enough!” They realized that if they were going to change the statistics, they themselves needed to speak up and act. Now, three-and-a-half decades later, SADD is a youth health and safety organization with thousands of chapters in middle schools and high schools across the country.

I joined SADD in high school. My chapter was a safe space, where teens could be teens with others that shared a central set of values. To this day, I cherish these friendships. My junior year, however, our mission became very real as I lost a close friend in a horrific crash. Nick’s death changed my school, my community, and me. The tears we shed were completely preventable. Nick should have been in our Homecoming group. He should have been in school bartering with the lunch ladies, and he should have been six spots behind me at graduation. In that moment, the story of SADD became my story. I wanted no other parent, school, or teen to feel the loss we felt.

In my freshman year of college, I was humbled to be selected as the SADD National Student of the Year. For the first time, I saw SADD turn from a passion into a real career option. I was fortunate enough to attend the NTSB Youth Open House representing SADD, where I networked with other youth leaders and professionals from across the country. In the room were dozens of committed professionals who found their way to transportation safety through a variety of paths. Yet, all shared a common thread: they loved what they did, maybe not every day, but their passion was rooted in a deep understanding of the problems they were solving.

The traffic safety field is small enough to form meaningful acquaintances that blossom into life-long friendships, but it is large enough to always look toward the next frontier. I found a space that truly values me as a young professional and supports me in my personal and professional growth.

In December 2015, the NTSB joined with SADD to launch a symposium event that expanded the definition of impaired driving. As I left the NTSB boardroom that day, I smiled. I realized that I was leaving the room where I decided to start my career. It all started with the NTSB Open House just a few years prior.

I’ve taken my passion and turned it into a career. Now, as I work with youth leaders across the country, as the Director of Strategic Partnerships at SADD, I always make sure I mention how much I love my job. Why? Because you never know when the next great engineer, highway safety specialist, grant writer, public information officer, or advocate could be standing in front of you. You never know which SADD student could invent the next generation air bag, create the next highway safety slogan, or advocate for the next life-changing legislation. That’s what motivates me. What motivates you?

What’s Changed About Distracted Driving? We Hope, At Least, You

By Robert L. Sumwalt

We’ve all seen it happen. . . We’re driving toward our destination, eyes on the road, when we notice a car in the lane next to ours start to drift slowly toward us. We adjust our own vehicle, then gradually slow down to allow for the erratic driver’s apparent need for access to both lanes. Then, through the other car’s rear window, we find out why it was unable to maintain its own lane: its driver was chatting away or attempting to text, rather than focusing on the task of driving.

But how many of us have used such a close call to adjust our own behavior toward distractions in the car? Are we doing enough to spread the word about the danger distractions pose? And how can we do it more effectively?

To kick off Distracted Driving Awareness Month last year, I had the privilege of hosting a roundtable discussion of national leaders in distraction research, transportation industry executives, and safety advocates. It was an unprecedented exchange of diverse viewpoints, but a few key takeaways emerged:

  • Eyes, hands, and mind on the road! Despite different methodologies, there is basic scientific agreement that cognitive distraction can degrade driving performance. Everybody understands that looking away or fiddling with gadgets increases risk – the problem is getting people to understand that even hands-free devices add driving risk too.
  • It’s worse than we thought – about four times worse. When we look at studies of distraction among teen drivers, we’re finding out that the national statistics attempting to show the prevalence of distraction is actually underreporting it by a factor of four.
  • (Temporarily) exiling digital natives. We need to train our children to make safe decisions, and to learn self-control so that the underlying behavior itself is changed. Technology can solve many problems with distraction, but consistently safe behavior remains critical.
  • Can safety sell in the state house? Many state legislators admit that voting to ban the use of personal electronic devices in private vehicles is such a political hot potato that they won’t do it, even when they recognize the associated safety risk.

As National Distracted Driving Awareness Month comes to an end this week, we have to ask ourselves – has anything changed?

Incredibly, four states still permit texting and driving. Only 14 states and DC have laws prohibiting handheld cell phones while driving. The political will to pass effective laws banning distracting technologies from our vehicles is still lacking, evidenced by the fact that no state has yet taken the step to prohibit all PED use while driving.

And, remember that car with the distracted driver creeping into your lane? Because they know the law does not punish their distracted driving with a penalty, they might continue their dangerous behavior until they – or you – pay a much higher price.

Legislators may not have the resolve to end distracted driving, but you can chose to end distracted driving.  Make the personal choice: don’t be a distracted driver, and don’t tolerate distracted driving by your children or friends.

This blog also appears on the National Safety Council (NSC) website.  NSC has received permission from the NTSB to reproduce it on the website.