When it comes to seat belts, Ford may have a better idea

Ford is introducing an inflatable seat belt for back seat passengers that it hopes will reduce injuries in front and side crashes.

The device will initially be available only as an option on the next-generation Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle, which goes into production next year. But safety experts say it has the potential to become widespread in the auto industry as car companies look for a marketing edge.

“The advancements in crash protection have focused a lot on front seat occupants, and this is a way to better protect rear seat occupants as well,” said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurer-funded group that advocates higher auto safety standards.

“Safety is now a huge part of the competitive marketplace, and automakers are using safety as a way to sell their vehicles and as a way to show that they are ahead of their competitors.”

According to Ford, the inflatable seat belts are more effective than conventional safety restraints at holding a rear passenger in place during a front or side collision.

Much like front-seat air bag, safety sensors measure the severity of a crash and quickly inflate the seat belts if needed. Each belt’s tubular air bag inflates with cold compressed gas, which flows through a specially designed buckle from a cylinder housed below the seat. (Watch a video of the system in action.)

Ford said that 90% of the research participants thought the new devices were more comfortable than traditional seat belts. The increased comfort level could help narrow the discrepancy between front and rear seat belt use. Only 61% of rear seat passengers routinely buckle up, compared with 82% of front seat occupants, according to federal safety data.

First motorcycle crash causation study in 30 years proceeds with diminished funding

When the National Transportation Safety Board released its fatalities report last month, the news was mixed. Overall traffic deaths were down for 2008, but motorcycle fatalities were up for the 11th year in a row. Motorcyclists now account for 14% of all roadway fatalities, even though they make up less than 1% of vehicles miles traveled. A new motorcycle crash causation study will try to find out why... To read the L.A. Now post about the first in-depth motorcycle crash study to be conducted in in the U.S. in 30 years, click here.

-- Susan Carpenter

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Volvo ads take a stand against distracted driving

There’s more to life than a Volvo. And that’s not my opinion; it’s what Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, said.

Full-page Volvo ads, set to print in the Wednesday editions of USA Today and the Washington Post, describe in stark, text-only copy the company’s support for the Department of Transportation’s efforts to combat rubbernecking, cellphone-using, text-messaging drivers at its “Distracted Driving Summit.”

During the Summit in Washington, D.C., which begins Wednesday, senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, law enforcement and academics will discuss ways to combat dangerous distracted driving, which is caused by things like texting while driving. 

Though Volvo isn’t a part of the summit, this is a big move for Volvo -- the ads are one of the first public statements the company has made in favor of any legislation, and they are serious about this one, choosing to publish the ads while the two-day summit takes place.

But Volvo is most certainly not on the sidelines with the fight against distracted driving. The advertisements discuss how Volvo has been committed to eliminating collisions in which distraction is a factor – from their development of the three-point seat belt, a major lifesaving device found in every car made today, to building cars that can warn fatigued drivers when they waver from their lane.

Volvo’s commendable long-term vision is stated in the ad: “Our vision is that by 2020, no one will be killed or injured in a new Volvo. It’s a lofty goal, but with current and future safety technologies, we’re confident we can reach it.”

-- Kelsey Ramos

Photo credit: Volvo Cars of North America

Texting while driving, and the subtext

The buzz-machine is in high gear this week on the issue of texting while driving. Today in Detroit, AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson announced the company’s initiative to warn drivers, particularly young people, about the dangers of texting behind the wheel. AT&T will also take part in the two-day “Distracted Driving Summit” beginning Wednesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

“Texting has increasingly become the way to communicate for many people, and the urge to quickly read and respond – even while driving – can be tempting,” said Stephenson. “Our goal is to send a simple, yet vital, message to all wireless users: Don’t text and drive."

(Maybe the company will offer a rock-your-world shock PSA like the one that recently debuted in the U.K.)

The AT&T news release suggests it might be somehow surprising that the country’s largest telecom and major player in the cell/text communications business might sponsor such a public awareness campaign.

Not really. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving, and seven states (including California) and the District have banned talking on a hand-held cellphone. Numerous safety organizations, including the National Safety Council, have called for an outright ban on mobile-device use behind the wheel.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation in July that would withhold DOT funds to states that fail to ban texting/e-mailing while driving. In other words, AT&T and other mobile-service providers, and their lobbyists, are going to find themselves in a pitched battle to avoid a flat-out ban on cell use/texting while driving. T

That would be bad for business. It’s smart that AT&T is trying to get ahead of the issue.

Lives lost 'car surfing' or 'ghost riding' linked to videos

It's called 'car surfing' -- a name that describes exactly what some teenagers are doing -- using car-as-surfboard while it's moving and sometimes even hanging on to the sides or by a rope. A study in the Journal of Neurosurgery looked at the rate of injuries over several years and found an increase in fatalities which occurred from 2004 to 2005 -- the same time a popular video game, Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas and the YouTube videos were published on the topic.

Read the full story on our Health Blog, Booster Shots.

Photo: by Leigh M. Aucoin via Flickr

Let's be careful out there

Here’s a reason to stay home on Saturday night:

The latest national survey by federal safety officials of alcohol and drug use on the nation’s roadways found that 16% of drivers tested on weekend nights turned up positive for drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and prescription sedatives.

It was the first time the survey had looked at drug usage, so it’s hard to know whether that number is going up or down. But Gil Kerlikowske, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the results “troubling.”

On a more positive note, the survey — conducted in 2007 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — found that only 2.2% of drivers tested had blood-alcohol content above the legal limit of 0.08%. That was half the number of the previous survey, in 1996, and down from 7.5% in 1973, the first year the survey was conducted.

The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has declined in tandem with alcohol-impaired driving, NHTSA said.

Among the survey's other findings:

The percentage of male drivers with illegal blood-alcohol levels was 42% higher than the percentage of alcohol-impaired female drivers.

Drivers were more likely to be drunk during late nighttime hours (1 a.m. to 3 a.m.) than during daytime or early evening hours.

Motorcycle riders were more than twice as likely as passenger vehicle drivers to be drunk (5.6% compared with 2.3%). Pickup truck drivers were the next most likely to have illegal blood-alcohol levels (3.3%).

The survey was conducted at 300 locations around the country and involved a rather intriguing methodology. Drivers were randomly “directed” into the survey site by police officers, although the alcohol and drug tests were actually administered by non-law-enforcement personnel.

Participation is voluntary and anonymous, and NHTSA says it used trained interviewers to determine whether the drivers who refused to participate were actually impaired. Drivers who were found to be under the influence, either through voluntary testing or observation, weren’t arrested. Instead, they were offered a number of options to keep them off the road until they sobered up, including an overnight stay in a hotel. Impaired drivers were not allowed to drive away from the survey site, according to NHTSA.

-- Martin Zimmerman

Earth to California: Learn how to drive!

We’re No. 48!

At least that’s where California ranked among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in GMAC Insurance’s fifth annual National Drivers Test.

GMAC surveyed more than 5,000 licensed drivers throughout the country, asking them to answer 20 questions gleaned from actual state drivers license exams. Based on the results of the survey, the insurer concluded that 20% of the licensed drivers in the U.S. — or about 40 million people — wouldn’t pass a written test if they had to take one today.

The average test score was 76.6%, down from last year's average of 78.1%.

Drivers in Idaho and Wisconsin tied for first, with an average test score of 80.6%. New York ranked last with an average score of 70.5%. The only other states that scored lower than California were New Jersey and Hawaii.

Drivers seemed to have particular trouble getting their minds around what to do at a yellow light and what constitutes a safe following distance. The concept of the solid-line lane marker, on the other hand, was familiar to just about everyone, according to GMAC.

A few other factoids:

• Drivers over age 35 were most likely to pass, while young adults ages 18 to 24 had the highest failure rate.
• Men were more likely than women to pass the test, but by a statistically insignificant margin — 81% to 79%.
• Drivers in the Midwest had both the highest average test scores (79%) and the lowest failure rate (15%). The Northeast had the lowest average test scores (74.5%), and the South had the highest failure rate (41%). 

You can take the test yourself at GMAC's website. Just for the record, I scored a 90% (so I like to tailgate – what's the big deal?).

-- Martin Zimmerman

Photo: A stop sign in the Hollywood Hills. Credit: Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times

'Offset' crash tests find higher risk for smaller cars

There’s an old saying -- you can’t repeal the laws of physics. That may be the discussion right now at several small-car manufacturers today.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, known for its slow-motion car crash videos, sent the Honda Fit crashing into a Honda Accord, the Smart ForTwo into a Mercedes C-Class and a Toyota Yaris into a Toyota Camry -- each at 40 miles per hour. The results indicate what safety you may be trading for efficiency when your mode of transportation shrinks.

The tests are called "offset" crashes. The cars crash not quite head on, similar to what would result when a car strays over the center line, and the damage can easily intrude into the passenger compartment. Each of the small cars sustained damage the institute believes would lead to injuries for their occupants.

In a statement, Adrian Lund, president of the Arlington, Va.-based institute, said, "Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter. In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."

The Smart ForTwo had “extensive” damage...

How safe is your pickup truck?

The battle to produce the biggest, toughest, meanest pickup is never-ending. Carmakers spend breathtaking amounts of time, energy and money boosting horsepower, features, towing capacity and the like. Apparently, amid all the brawn and dust and sweat and steel-alloyed testosterone, a little something called safety sometimes gets left behind.

According to newly released safety ratings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, of the six vehicles it places in the full-size pickup category, only three receive the highest marks for side-impact protection, and only four make the cut for rear-impact protection.

The safety laggards are the Nissan Titan and the Chevy Silverado, the second-best selling pickup in the country. For side impact safety, both are rated as "poor" in the IIHS's four-grade rating system (good, acceptable, marginal and poor), and both rank only "acceptable" in rear-end crashes. The Dodge Ram was only a bit better, scoring an uninspiring "marginal" for side impact.

The shining stars, meanwhile, are the Toyota Tundra, Honda Ridgeline and the Ford F-150, which netted perfect "good" ratings for front, side and rear impact.

Tough break for the Titan, Silverado and Ram. But hey, at least they're safer than cars, right?

Wrong, said David Zuby, senior vice president of the IIHS. "The size, weight and height of these large pickups should help them ace the side tests, just like the other large pickups we’ve tested," he said. "Not these three; they perform worse than many cars we’ve evaluated.” In fact, according to the IIHS, not a single midsized sedan scored lower than "acceptable."

Ouch....

Does pricey gas make cars safer?

Does costly gas save lives?

That's a question touched on in an interesting new study published this week by the Governors Highway Safety Assn., which looked at fatalities in 44 states plus the District of Columbia. Overall, the study found that between 2007 and 2008 the total number of fatalities declined in all but four states, led by a 28.5% reduction in mortality in Massachusetts.

But by comparing the percentage change in number of fatalities to percentage change in the number of miles driven in the state — a statistic called Vehicle Miles Driven, or VMT, reported by 22 of the states in question — the study makes it possible to zero in on whether the safety gains are entirely linked to the cost of gas.

How? Because time and again, surveys (and common sense) have shown that when gas is expensive, people drive less; conversely, when gas is cheap, they eat up the miles. Since cars that aren't on the road can't kill their drivers, passengers, other drivers or pedestrians, the theory goes, pricier gas would logically spell fewer fatalities. So: Cheap gas kills. And since high gas prices took a big bite out of VMT last year, it would appear a perfect year to establish that relationship.

At least in theory. Reality would appear a bit more complicated....