[Adam_Smith]

When it comes to auto safety, it's time to hit the brakes
Updated 11/1/2006 9:15 PM ET
By John Merline

Imagine 119 people dropping dead each day from eating salmonella-infected produce. Or seven fully loaded 747s crashing every month. Imagine a school bus load of children going off a cliff every other week.

That's what it would take to equal the number of deaths caused by traffic accidents, which last year claimed 43,443 lives — 2,348 of whom were children. Since the 1980s, more than a million people have died in crashes.

Given these grim statistics, it is no wonder auto safety advocates are so enthusiastic about year 2011. That's when every car sold in the USA must come equipped with electronic stability control (ESC), which uses state-of-the-art electronic gizmos to help prevent cars from careening out of control.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicts ESC will save up to 10,000 lives each year. John Woodrooffe of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute likened ESC to "a guardian angel sitting on the shoulder of the driver." Even the notoriously anti-mandate auto industry has embraced the federal rules pushing this technology.

Take a step back

There's just one problem. Auto safety technologies tend not to live up to the promises made when they were introduced. Consider these examples:

•Air bags. In 1977, the federal government predicted that air bags could cut the risk of dying in a crash by 40%, saving about 12,000 lives a year. It turns out that in the real world, air bags provide a relatively modest 11% reduction in risk and save about 2,400 lives annually. In other words, air bags are one-fifth as effective as first predicted.

•Anti-lock brakes. These devices promised to produce safety advances because they prevent wheel lockups, shorten stopping distances and can prevent cars from skidding out of control. Today, they are viewed as a mixed bag. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found "no difference in the overall fatal crash involvement of cars with and without anti-locks."

•Brake lights. Those brake lights mounted high on the back of cars and trucks are the result of a 1986 federal mandate put in place under the assumption that a more visible brake light would cut the risk of rear-end collisions by 35%. The actual figure is 4%.

The overall picture isn't much better. While cars come stuffed with air bags, collapsible steering wheels and many other safety features, annual highway deaths have barely budged in two decades, and the fatality rate — the number of deaths per mile driven — has pretty much been stuck in place for five years.

Drivers make a difference

Why the disconnect? One possible explanation is that drivers might react to new safety features by driving a little more recklessly. They might go a bit faster, tailgate more often, pay less attention to the road. Several studies found this effect on drivers in cars with anti-lock brakes. What's to say drivers won't do the same on ESC-equipped cars?

The problem is that it doesn't take much added risk to overwhelm technology's benefits. For example, you need to drive only about 2 mph faster, on average, to cancel the added benefit of an air bag, according to Leonard Evans, author of the book Traffic Safety.

This isn't to say we should rip out all the safety stuff. But it does suggest that perhaps we are spending too much time and effort targeting the wrong end of the safety problem.

Anyone who drives today knows we could do more to enforce speed limits and drunken driving laws, get people to buckle up, and keep driver distractions to a minimum. Evans' research finds that other countries — such as Canada, Great Britain and Australia — have done so, and have far more safety progress than the United States. Canada has cut its highway deaths in half since the 1970s.

ESC could live up to its promise. I hope it does. But if we as a nation really want to reduce the annual carnage on our roads, we should start at the source.

In short: The most dangerous part of an automobile is the "nut behind the wheel".

[QatzelOk]

Make cars more dangerous for their drivers, and they might slow down.

I recommend metal knives sticking out of the dashboard, ready to pierce the driver and front passenger's heart in a collision.

More dead drivers would lead to more rumours about how dangerous driving really is. People would start being more careful, driving slower, driving LESS.

Today's car "safety features" just encourage a sense of immortality in the motorist. Which is what car companies want you to feel - immortal. Like you won't die as long as your SUV is big enough (and your military has enough WMDs).

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Today's car "safety features" just encourage a sense of immortality in the motorist

That is an interesting point. But I would have to disagree. I think the immortality factors comes from inexperience and youth. I know, i'm a typical example. I drive a 30 year old car with no modern saftey features and thought I was immortal. No I have had my fair share of accidents. Luckyly noone was hurt, no i'm older and more experienced and know how my car controls i've become ALOT more responsible.

People are going to drive fast, recksly, and not less, no matter how safe or unsafe a car is. Having moder safety features will just decrease the chance of people getting hurt or killed.

I also think that is there were rumours about how dangerous driving is (it is allready dangerous, getting behing the wheel of a car you are in control of your life and the lives of others on the road) it wouldn't lead to people driving less. The chance of having an accident is so small compared to how many people actually drive every one will think ..."It won't happen to me, the probability is so remote."

As I said, i'm not ripping on your ideas, I think they are quite interesting. Only if the could work, road fatalities here in Australia a far to high.