Author: wmlawyers

Earlier this month, we told readers that April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month across California. All this month, the California Highway Patrol and local law enforcement agencies have been cracking down (more than usual) on texting and other cellphone use behind the wheel. Safety advocates have also been trying to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving.

It should be noted that distracted driving is a dangerous practice even if the driver is engaged in the service of public safety. Police officers, ambulance drivers and other operators of emergency vehicles are increasingly causing serious accidents while distracted by in-vehicle technology. This prompts the important question: When it comes to distracted driving, who will police the police?

According to a news story that first ran in late 2014, distracted emergency-vehicle drivers in California have injured at least 140 people and killed at least three people in the last couple years. Other state data shows that over the past decade, the number of emergency vehicle crashes caused by distracted drivers has increased by 122 percent. To be clear, these statistics involve crashes where emergency vehicle drivers were distracted and therefore deemed at fault.

Most squad cars these days come with what is basically a laptop mounted between the two front seats. This is in addition to two-way radios and a host of other gadgets. While some law enforcement agencies have clear policies about not using this type of technology while driving, others have unclear and inconsistent policies or no policies at all.

In order to do their jobs effectively, drivers of emergency vehicles need driving allowances that the rest of us do not have. Speeding is a good example. But because distracted driving cannot be done safely – even by highly skilled drivers – shouldn’t emergency vehicle drivers be held to the same standards as the rest of the public?

Source: Los Angeles Daily News, “Distracted driving on the rise for police, fire and ambulance drivers,” Brenda Gazzar, Oct. 6, 2014

Most drivers are surprisingly predictable. For example, if you knew what signs to look for, you could identify a driver at risk for nodding off at the wheel with relative ease. If your car could identify certain signs, it might be able to stop you from making hazardous choices, or at least warn you ahead of time. Researchers at Cornell University have developed a tool that may soon enable vehicles to do just that.

Unlike other driver safety systems already on the market, this driver safety system monitors a driver’s choices from inside the car. Instead of reacting when a driver makes a hazardous choice or mistake, this system monitors a driver’s behavior to anticipate which hazardous choices he or she may be at risk of making.

As one researcher recently explained, “there are many systems now that monitor what’s going on outside the car. Internal monitoring of the driver will be the next leap forward.” The internal system that was recently developed picks up cues from drivers’ body language and analyzes it in conjunction with events occurring outside of the vehicle. Taken together, these pieces of information aid the system in preventing car accidents before they have a chance to occur.

Unlike other systems which only warn drivers after they have made poor choices, this safety system warns drivers before they have a chance to make a hazardous decision. This safety-related breakthrough may ultimately be the kind of innovative approach that results in a dramatic drop in motor vehicle accident rates. Only time and a widespread dissemination of this technology will tell.

Source: Cornell Chronicle, “Car safety system could anticipate driver’s mistakes,” Bill Steele, April 14, 2015

In light of the year of record auto recalls in 2014, it should come as no surprise that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received a fair amount of criticism. When major scandals about automotive defects become public, it seems as though NHTSA officials always say they were aware of problems but did not have the resources to fully investigate or the authority to intervene.

The agency’s claim may finally be put to the test. The multi-year surface transportation funding bill proposed by the Obama administration is currently under consideration by congress. Provisions in the bill would dramatically increase funding for the NHTSA’s defect investigations office and give the agency considerably more power over vehicle sales in cases where major defects have been identified.

One provision seeks to give the NHTSA “imminent hazard authority.” This means that “in cases where there is an imminent risk of injury or death,” the NHTSA could order automakers to halt sales of certain vehicles until or unless those defects are fixed.

If passed, the legislation would also bolster the agency’s defect investigations office by doubling its staff and nearly tripling its funding. Finally, it would also allow the NHTSA to impose maximum fines against automakers of up to $300 million, as opposed to the current $35 million maximum.

Legislators seem to be realizing that major auto recall scandals are not going away and appear to be getting worse. As such, we need to start addressing the problem by adequately funding and authorizing the agency tasked with policing the auto industry.

Source: AutoNews.com, “NHTSA would get stop-sale power under U.S. bill,” Ryan Beene, March 30, 2015

In our increasingly corporate and technological world, attention is a precious resource. There’s no question that advertisers are competing for our attention, but it is also being taken by our electronic devices. At certain times – like when you’re behind the wheel of a car – stolen attention can be a very dangerous thing.

California has fairly comprehensive distracted driving laws, at least related to cellphone use behind the wheel. But laws alone are ineffective and need to be combined with strict enforcement and public awareness campaigns. As it happens, April has been dubbed “Distracted Driving Awareness Month,” and the California Highway Patrol has some plans on how best to raise awareness.

According to news sources, the CHP (and local law enforcement agencies) will be ramping up enforcement of distracted driving laws all month. Law enforcement officers will be focused on catching distracted drivers and issuing citations.

April is also a good time to correct some common misconceptions about distracted driving. According to the National Safety Council, for instance, about 80 percent of Americans believe that it is safer to use a hands-free device than a handheld cellphone. In reality, the risk is essentially the same, because the brain is distracted by both. This has been demonstrated in some 30 studies to date.

If you drive (and most of us do), please do your part this month and every month to make sure that you are always distraction-free behind the wheel. And if you are the parent of a teen driver, this month is the perfect time to start or revisit conversations about the dangers of distracted driving.

Source: Kern Golden Empire, “CHP cracking down on distracted drivers,” April 1, 2015

If you’ve spent any time driving in California, you’ve seen it. If you’re a motorcyclist you’ve probably done it. We are speaking, of course, about lane splitting. The practice of allowing motorcyclists to drive in between lanes of cars during traffic congestion is unique to California. It is not legal in any other state.

In fact, it’s not technically legal here, either – at least not yet. There isn’t a specific statute permitting lane splitting, but it has been an accepted practice for decades. And if a current bill passes the state legislature, lane splitting could become officially legal very soon.

The bill has already passed the assembly and will now make its way to the Senate. A strong argument for legalization is that lawmakers could place restrictions on lane splitting and police could better enforce the practice. A couple years ago, the California Highway Patrol issued safety guidelines (take it slow, ride only in the left two lanes, etc.), but without a law there is no real enforcement mechanism.

At least one study has found that lane splitting is safer for motorcyclists than stopping in traffic. This is because inattentive drivers often rear-end stopped motorcyclists, which can be injurious or fatal. Allowing riders to keep moving ultimately reduces the chances that they’ll be struck in this fashion (although lane splitting does have its own obvious dangers).

As Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month draws to a close, passing a lane-splitting bill seems like a fitting way to show California’s commitment to keeping riders safe.

People who live here in the Bay Area are no doubt familiar with Google's project to develop self-driving cars. You may have even seen the quirky-looking vehicles making test drives on streets throughout the area. Since the project began, the Google fleet of more than 20 vehicles has cumulatively traveled more than 1.7 million miles.

Although the fully autonomous vehicles do have a human operator ready to take over, it has never really been a problem. That's not to say that the self-driving cars have never been in accidents. But according to Google, in every one of the 11 minor car accidents that have occurred, the self-driving cars were not to blame.

Even if you don't believe Google's claim about its non-human drivers, 11 minor accidents is nonetheless an impressive safety record considering how many miles have been driven. Moreover, the autonomous vehicles have apparently been able to conduct traffic research during their 10,000 miles of driving per week.

According to the data that Google has analyzed, two human driving behaviors contribute to a significant number of accidents: Running red lights and drifting out of lanes.

As technology companies work to take human error out of driving, they have found that humans continue to cause car accidents because of two basic and very preventable errors. In the case of red-light running, the behavior may more appropriately be considered poor judgment than an honest error.

Is it any surprise that the biggest threats that human drivers face most of the time are their own bad decisions and other human drivers? Hopefully, fully autonomous vehicles will be in widespread use as soon as practically possible.

Source: ABC News, "Google: What It Learned From 1.7 Million Miles on the Road," Alyssa Newcomb, May 11, 2015

Although it is only May, there have been a number of high-profile, fatal crashes between trains and automobiles this year. The United States has thousands of “grade crossings,” where train tracks and roads intersect at ground level. While some are well marked and have high visibility, there are far too many crossings so poorly maintained and marked that fatal train accidents become highly likely.

This year’s fatal train-automobile collisions in California and elsewhere have raised considerable awareness about the hazards of dangerous grade crossings. Unfortunately, such intersections are expensive to repair and upgrade, and many local governments either cannot or will not pay for the work to be done.

That being said, the recent announcement of a lawsuit may be a catalyst for change. In February, a driver in New York state was killed when her SUV was stopped on train tracks and was hit by an oncoming train. Six train passengers also died in the collision. The motorist’s family recently filed a lawsuit alleging that the grade crossing was and is unsafe.

The law firm representing the woman’s family has said that there were significant “line of sight” issues that made it difficult to see a train coming until it was too late. These included buildings near the tracks and “the interplay between the roadway and the railroad tracks.” The crossing also lacks adequate signage and lighting, the lawsuit claims.

When the accident occurred, it was witnessed by a driver right behind the motorist who was struck and killed. He said he also didn’t realize the train was coming until it was too late to react.

This lawsuit could be a catalyst for change because of the parties named as defendants. They include local governments, the state of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. As much as it may cost to make necessary repairs and upgrades, governments and companies using the tracks may wish to pay those costs rather than face continued litigation filed by accidents victims and their families.

Source: ABC News, “Family of Motorist in Deadly Metro-North Crash Plans to Sue,” Linsey Davis, May 5, 2015

Last year was a record-setting year for auto recalls. Although the General Motors ignition switch scandal was the most prominent story, dozens of automakers issued recalls for safety defects in their own vehicles.

There were more vehicles recalled in the U.S. in 2014 than during any other year since the invention of the automobile. But even as we are less than halfway through 2015, a recently announced recall will likely steal the spotlight. Japanese auto parts manufacturer Takata has recently agreed to recall 34 million vehicles in the United States over concerns about exploding air bags. When all is said and done, this will likely be the largest vehicle recall in U.S. history.

As readers may remember, Takata started facing significant criticism and scrutiny last year about allegations that its air bags could inflate too violently and explode. This, in turn, could send small metal fragments (from the air bag components) shooting into the cab of the vehicle like shrapnel from an exploding bomb. So far, six deaths have been linked to the defect, as well as more than 100 injuries.

Takata sells its airbags to major automakers, so the recall could include vehicles from 10 or more car companies, including Honda, Nissan and Chrysler. To make matters even worse, the problem is not a new one. Takata has been denying and minimizing allegations about exploding air bags for more than a decade.

Up until recently, the company has been trying to limit the number of vehicles it must recall. But earlier this week, the company said it would double the number of vehicles it planned to recall in the U.S., possibly due to consistent pressure from safety regulators. Takata has also recently admitted that the defects are not just limited to manufacturing errors. Instead, their air bags may also suffer from design flaws.

With the mass production of automobiles on a global scale, it is reasonable to conclude that mistakes will be made and recalls will sometimes be necessary. But when automakers prioritize profits over human safety, their misplaced priorities lead to decades-long cover-ups and untold numbers of injuries and deaths. Such negligence is truly inexcusable.

Source: The New York Times, “Airbag Recall Widens to 34 Million Cars as Takata Admits Defects,” Danielle Ivory and Hiroko Tabuchi, May 19, 2015