Most crash reports do not capture critical data, says National Safety Council

A National Safety Council review of motor vehicle crash reports from across the US found no state fully captures critical data needed to address and understand the rise in roadway fatalities. Crash reports from all 50 states lack fields or codes for law enforcement to record the level of driver fatigue at the time of a crash, while many others lack fields to capture texting, hands-free cell phone use and specific types of drug use if drugs are detected, including marijuana. Excluding these fields limits the
April 25, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
A 4953 National Safety Council review of motor vehicle crash reports from across the US found no state fully captures critical data needed to address and understand the rise in roadway fatalities. Crash reports from all 50 states lack fields or codes for law enforcement to record the level of driver fatigue at the time of a crash, while many others lack fields to capture texting, hands-free cell phone use and specific types of drug use if drugs are detected, including marijuana. Excluding these fields limits the ability to effectively address these problems, says the report.


States are also failing to capture teen driver restrictions, the use of advanced driver assistance technologies and of infotainment systems. The findings are summarised in the new NSC report, Undercounted is Underinvested: How incomplete crash reports impact efforts to save lives, released during Distracted Driving Awareness Month.
   
Preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council indicate as many as 40,000 people died in car crashes in 2016, marking a six per cent increase over 2015 and a 14 per cent increase over 2014 – the most dramatic two-year escalation since 1964. Without a clear understanding of the scope of the problem, regulations, laws and policies cannot be more effective.

The National Safety Council is calling on the traffic safety community to take several actions to ensure better data collection and has compiled a full list of recommendations, which is available on its website.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Public safety demand driving ITS market growth, says report
    April 13, 2016
    The latest report from RnR Market Research indicates that one of the major factors positively impacting the intelligent transport systems market is the growing need for public safety as collision avoidance and dynamic warning systems are introduced to reduce the frequency of accidents by making users more aware of their surroundings. The analysts forecast global intelligent transport systems market to grow at a CAGR of 8.23 per cent during the period 2016-2020. The report, Global Intelligent Transport Sy
    Read More
  • ETSC welcomes EU plans for safer cars, vans and lorries
    December 20, 2016
    The European Commission has published a list of 19 lifesaving safety technologies that could be made mandatory on new vehicles in the next update of EU vehicle safety rules expected next year. The European Transport Safety Council (ETCS) welcomes the announcement but says several critical areas for action are missing, and the proposed timescale is far too long considering that most of the technologies are already available. ETSC says 26,000 people die on European Union roads annually, with at least
    Read More
  • Freight poses growing problem for city authorities
    March 3, 2017
    Wes Guckert considers possible solutions and countermeasures to the problems of increased freight deliveries in growing cities. In January 2016, the US Department of Transportation (USDoT) conducted a session on the SmartCity Challenge and Urban Freight and Logistics. This session was a follow-up to the USDoT report titled, Beyond Traffic 2045.
    Read More
  • Tesla Autopilot system ‘not at fault’ in fatal crash
    January 24, 2017
    A nine-month investigation by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) into the fatal car crash involving a Tesla Model S in Florida last year has concluded that the car’s Autopilot system, which was in operation at the time, was not at fault. The decision noted that Autopilot is a Level 2 self-driving system and, therefore, requires the driver to always monitor the system and be at the ready to intervene – a stipulation that the driver failed to perform, the administration says.
    Read More

Highlighted Content