In January 2010, the National Safety Council (NSC) released a report estimating that at least 1.6 million crashes (28 percent of all crashes) are caused each year in the U.S. by drivers talking on cellphones (1.4 million crashes) and texting (200,000 crashes). The estimate is based on data of driver cellphone use from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and research that quantifies the risks using cellphones and texting while driving.

A July 2009 Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study found that texting while driving is far more dangerous than previously estimated. The collision risk became 23 times higher when motorists were texting while driving.

In addition, as of June 2010 eight states (California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah and Washington State) plus the District of Columbia, ban the use of hand-held cellphones while driving.

Employers May Be Held Liable

Employers are now concerned that they may be held liable for accidents caused by their employees while driving and conducting work-related conversations on cellphones, according to the I.I.I. Under the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, employers may be held legally accountable for the negligent acts of employees committed in the course of employment. Employers may also be found negligent if they fail to put in place a policy for the safe use of cellphones.

The I.I.I. recommends the following safety tips when driving:

Pull Off the Road
Don’t drive while calling or texting; pull off the road to a safe location.
Use Speed Dialing
Program frequently called numbers and your local emergency number into the speed dial feature of your phone for easy, one-touch dialing. when available, use auto answer or voice-activated dialing.
Never Dial While Driving
If you must dial manually, do so only when stopped. Pull off the road, or better yet, have a passenger dial for you.
Take a Message
Let your voice mail pick up your calls in tricky driving situations. It’s easy—and safer—to retrieve your messages later on.
Know When to Stop Talking
Keep conversations on the phone and in the car brief so you can concentrate on your driving. if a long discussion is required, if the topic is stressful or emotional, or if driving becomes hazardous, end your conversation and continue it once you are off the road.
Keep the Phone in Its Holder
Make sure your phone is securely in its holder when you are not using it so it does not pop out and distract you when you are driving.
Don’t Take Notes While Driving
If you need to write something down, use a tape recorder or pull off the road.
Don’t Eat or Drink While Driving
Spills, both hot and cold, can easily cause an accident. If you have to stop short, you could also be severely burned.
Groom Yourself At Home
Shaving, putting on makeup, combing your hair or other forms of preening are distractions and should be done at home, not while driving.

While everyone should follow these safety rules, it is particularly important to review them carefully with teens when they are first learning to drive. “Teens and Distracted Driving”, a Pew Internet & American Life Project 2009 survey of 800 young people, found that 26 percent of American teens ages 16 to 17 have texted while driving and 43 percent have talked on a cellphone while driving. Forty-eight percent of teens ages 12 to 17 say they have been in a car when the driver was texting and 40 percent say they have been in a car when the driver used a cellphone in a way that put themselves or others in danger.

“Both times were just as I was starting to get a little bit cocky,” Foley said. “I’m exceptionally fortunate that I dropped it at a standstill, not 50 or 60 miles an hour.”

The most dangerous time for motorcyclists by far is their first year, peaking in the first month, safety studies show. Another study suggests that licensing courses that fast-track the time it takes to get on the road don’t lower crash risks and may even raise them.

With the riding season getting under way in the Northeast, his second, Foley has become more cautious on his 800cc Intruder, which falls in the middle of the power range that manufacturers have generally ramped up over a generation. He’s also more experienced and quietly confident and hasn’t dropped the bike again.

He loves riding back roads but won’t go fast on turns he doesn’t know. He tries to contain his enthusiasm for what he calls an exhilarating and Zen pastime that lets him forget everything else.

“Even though a motorcycle is not a toy,” he said, “it brings out the child in me.”

For motorcycle riders, their first 30 days are about four times more risky than their entire second year, said Matthew Moore, vice president of the Highway Loss Data Institute. “It’s most likely inexperience. Operating a motorcycle is a fairly complex task.”

For example, he said, pulling out on a hill requires a half-dozen actions: balancing on one foot, braking to keep the bike from rolling back, shifting gear, feathering the throttle, watching for traffic and releasing the clutch.

An institute study showed 22 percent of nearly 57,000 collision claims from 2003 to 2007 occurred in the first 30 days after an insurance policy took effect. The claim rate dropped one-third in the second month and almost two-thirds after six months.

More than half the insurance claims on so-called supersport bikes occurred in the first three months. Often favored by younger riders, they have high power-to-weight ratios and can approach 200 mph.

An institute analysis of state-required training programs for riders under 21 in California, Florida, Idaho and Oregon found graduates’ collision claim frequency was 10 percent higher compared with 28 states without those requirements.

“Although this difference isn’t statistically significant, it contradicts the notion that motorcycle training courses reduce crashes,” the affiliated Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said.

One potential explanation is that riders completing a course are often fully licensed, which may shorten the learning period riding under a preliminary permit, Moore said. In New York, for example, passing a written test results in a one-year permit, which authorizes riding accompanied by a licensed motorcyclist. Learners then must pass a road test or successfully complete the two- to three-day course of classroom and hands-on instruction.

“The idea of me getting on a motorcycle without that class just would have been reckless,” Foley said. “I don’t know how else I would have learned to ride a motorcycle. My circle is not filled with people who ride bikes.”

Lisa Pallone said she and her husband had no problems on their 883cc Harley-Davidson Sportsters, the smallest bike from the U.S. maker of heavyweight cruisers, after buying them in 2008 and learning on smaller bikes in the training course. “We felt comfortable with ourselves but not to the point we were stupid. A lot of it might be our age,” she said. Pallone bought the bikes when her husband turned 40 and she was 48.

The nonprofit Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s basic rider course, offered in 48 states, has trained more than 6 million riders, about 400,000 last year, said Sherry Williams, director of quality assurance and research. It includes turning, braking, using the controls and emergency responses. It costs $275 in New York.

“We say we improve knowledge, skill sets and increase awareness,” said Ray Oakes, director of foundation training systems. “We can fix the ignorance part. We can’t fix stupid.”

One survey indicated 45 percent of U.S. riders have taken the course, though some learn during the course that motorcycles aren’t for them, Williams said. It has opened motorcycling to people who don’t know a rider who will teach them. Women in some states represent 20 to 30 percent of the students, and the survey showed they account for 10 percent of riders.

U.S. motorcycle deaths peaked in 2008 at 5,312, having doubled in a decade, according to federal data. The rise was attributed to increased ridership especially among baby boomers who ride for fun. Fatalities dropped to 4,469 a year later as sales dropped nearly 50 percent in a recession.

The poll of 2,099 adults finds that 64 percent support the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation for a nationwide ban on the non-emergency use of personal-electronic devices while driving, with 41 percent saying they “strongly agree” with the recommendation.

Twenty-two percent of respondents say they strongly disagree.

The poll comes days after several risk managers told NU Online News Service that they would support such a ban.

The American Insurance Association has also said it supports the NTSB’s recommendation.

However, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced on Dec. 22 that he would not back a nationwide ban, saying he supports using hands-free devices while driving instead.

The IBOPE Zogby poll shows more women than men strongly support a ban (49 percent of women versus 31 percent of men).

Adults 65 and older are also more likely to strongly support a ban (58 percent) than younger adults (34 percent for both the 18-29 and 30-49 age groups).

Broken down by political affiliation, 59 percent of adults identifying themselves as Democrats strongly support a ban compared to just 33 percent of independents and 27 percent of Republicans.

Commenting on the poll, Daniel DeVries, IBOPE Zogby communications and media manager, says, “I think the numbers show some strong support almost universally, with the only major variations really appearing when it comes to age. Unsurprisingly, young people who grew up in a time of widespread cell use are more likely to disagree with the NTSB recommendation.”

NU Online News Service

The award recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, rollover, and rear crashes based on ratings in Institute evaluations.

Specifically, frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. In the roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against a side of a roof at a displacement rate of 0.2 inch per second. Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure, with starting points measuring the head restraint geometry. Seat/head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested using a dummy that measures forces on the neck.

The ratings, which cover all 4 of the most common kinds of crashes, are designed to help shoppers pick vehicles that offer the highest levels of crash protection.

In all, 69 cars, 38 SUVs, 5 minivans, and 3 pickups were recognized. The winners’ circle includes 18 new recipients for 2012, while 97 models that previously qualified for the 2011 award carry over to 2012.

“For the second year running a record number of models qualify,” said Institute president Adrian Lund. “It’s tough to win, and we commend auto manufacturers for making safety a top priority.”

Again this year every major automaker has at least one winner. Subaru remains the only manufacturer with the distinction of earning awards for every model it builds. Subaru picked up 5 awards, including one for the redesigned Impreza, a small car.

Toyota/Lexus/Scion has 15 winners for 2012, more than any other auto manufacturer. General Motors is next in line with 14, followed by Volkswagen/Audi with 13, and Ford/Lincoln and Honda/Acura with 12 awards apiece.

The full list can be found at: www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr121511.html

As part of the study, 4autoinsurancequote.org found that fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers distracted by their cell phones have almost doubled since 2005. According to the company, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that distracted driving accidents saw a marked increase in 2008, when texting found its way into the mainstream. The following year, distracted drivers were at fault in 24,000 injury accidents and caused 1,000 fatalities.

When conducting this study, the company found that those who text and drive place themselves and others in danger due to three specific factors. First, drivers are visually distracted, as they remove their eyes from the road in order to read incoming texts. Secondly, drivers are cognitively distracted, as they are thinking about the content of the text message rather than their surroundings. Lastly, drivers are limited in their ability to drive safely and to react quickly when they remove their hands from the wheel.

Though the risks of texting and driving are apparent, many drivers admit to continuing with this practice. During the study, 4autoinsurancequote.org learned that nearly 10 percent of the driving population in the United States text and drive on a regular basis. According to the CDC, drivers who fall between the ages of 18 to 29 admit to texting while behind the wheel at least once per month, while a full 25 percent of those in that age group state that they habitually text and drive.

The study found that because of the high incidence of accidents caused by distracted drivers, as many as 35 states as well as the District of Columbia and Guam have enforced strict regulations related to texting and driving. In many states, it is now illegal for drivers to text while behind the wheel and law enforcement officials may cite any driver that is visibly seen conducting this practice. In some states, law enforcement agents may stop drivers who are texting even if no other offenses are being committed.

Because texting and driving causes serious accidents every year, being issued a ticket for this offense can cause the driver to be viewed as an insurance risk. Thus, the monthly premium can escalate very quickly. 4autoinsurancequote.org has learned that the insurance industry is not only raising premiums for those drivers who text behind the wheel, but the industry as a whole is attempting to curb the practice altogether. The industry suggests blocking text messaging services while driving by installing text-blocking apps on phones or installing sensor devices in cars that block signals on cell phones.

Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9132011.htm

Copyright:

(c) 2012 PRWEB.COM Newswire

Source:

PR Web

Remember that scene in Clueless when Dionne accidentally exits onto the freeway and she, Cher, and Murray freak out? That was me. In fact, until I was about 19 years old, I had to turn off the radio when merging into moving traffic, and for the first year I avoided highways all together.

It didn’t help that I owned a beater of a car — and that’s an understatement. This vehicle was so terrible that one of my best friend’s fathers refused to let her in it. And in hindsight, I don’t blame him. It looked like it might break down or blow up at any minute. Eventually it did — break down, that is. Luckily it was in my own neighborhood, so I did what any self-respecting teen boy would do in that situation — I called my dad to pick me up and left the car where it died for someone else to scavenge.

So your kid doesn’t suffer the same fate, conduct research into a vehicle’s safety before you buy. I know that not everyone can afford a new car or even a great used car when their kid reaches driving age, but safety is never a poor investment.

To help you make the most informed decision, I’ve asked a few experts for their insight on how to choose the safest car for your new driver. Here’s what they had to say.

Q: Overall, what’s the safest type of car for teens?

A: “Teens are safest in a mid-sized, four-door sedan with four cylinders. This type of vehicle does not have too much power, but still allows the inexperienced driver to maneuver safely through traffic,” says LeeAnn Shattuck, co-owner of Women’s Automotive Solutions, a consulting firm that helps women (and men) buy cars. “It’s big enough to protect them sufficiently in an accident, but not so big that it is difficult to control. They also can’t stuff too many of their friends into a mid-sized sedan, which can be a significant distraction for teens. My insurance agent partners all say that this type of vehicle is also the cheapest to insure for a teen.”

Q: What about SUVs? They seem safe, especially since there’s a higher center of gravity. Are they good for teen drivers?

A: “Many parents think their teen is safest in an SUV because it will protect them in an accident,” Shattuck says. “But statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show that teens are more likely to get into an accident in an SUV (vs. a sedan) because those larger vehicles (with a higher center of gravity) are much more difficult to control if they have to take evasive action. Because the SUVs also tend to cause more damage in an accident, insurance rates are higher.”

Q: Besides safety in accidents, what are some other concerns parents should think about when buying a car for the teen?

A: “I advise parents to avoid Hondas for their teens, especially for teen girls, since Honda Civics and Accords are the most stolen cars in America. You don’t want your 16-year-old daughter getting car jacked on her way home from soccer practice or work,” says Shattuck. “I tend to steer parents more towards the Toyota Camry or even Corolla, the Nissans, and the Hyundais. Even the Ford Focus or Fusion (or an older Taurus) are safe and reasonably reliable. If they really want an SUV (to be higher up for better visibility), I highly recommend the Ford Escape. It’s a decently reliable little SUV, easy to drive, used ones are in the $6,000 to $10,000 range, and they have relatively low maintenance costs.

Q: What are the benefits of a used car over a new car?

A: “Buying used for a young driver makes more sense than buying new since overall vehicle costs on used cars are typically lower,” says Max Katsarelas, marketing strategist for Mojo Motors. “Plus, with the rapid depreciation of a new car once it drives off the lot, buying used can save some major coin, especially when considering the accident rate of young drivers. Auto repair costs for young drivers total about $19 billion, so buying a new car doesn’t make financial sense when taking into consideration the resale value after an accident. Since a vehicle’s crash history can be seen with a Carfax report and any sign of an accident, even ‘fender benders’ drop a vehicle’s resale value considerably. Ultimately, the best bet for parents looking at cars for young drivers should buy used. For example, a new 2012 Ford Focus starts at around $18,000. A gently used 2008 Ford Focus with under 60,000 miles can be had for under $10,000. Both boast the highest safety rating, ‘Good’ from IIHS, but a used Focus can cost up to $10,000 less.

Q. If parents want to buy their new driver a new car for under $15,000, what are some of the best options?

A: Money Crashers recently compiled a list of the “10 Best Affordable Cars for College Students.” Of course, the choices are great for teen drivers in high school, too, since their parents are likely covering at least part of the vehicle’s cost. As it turns out, most of the cars on the list, as mentioned by the experts, are four-door sedans with modest sticker prices and a history of safety. While these selections and prices are based on new cars, feel free to use this guide to help identify economical used cars with good safety ratings.

Written by Mikey Rox and published on Wise Bread.

The guide says many people are intimidated when they file an auto insurance claim, because they have never done it before or are worried about getting less than they deserve for personal injuries or damages to their car.

“You should report the loss to the insurer as soon as possible. Your insurer cannot begin the claims’ payment process until you do so,” the guide says. It adds, “It is your choice — not the insurer’s — as to where your vehicle is repaired.”

And when trying to get the insurer to address the insured’s concern, “aim higher up the company’s ‘food chain’ than the adjuster’s supervisor if you want to get your problem resolved.”

“The last thing a local or regional claims’ office wants is a call from the home office about a complaint,” the guide says. “They are evaluated based on how they resolve the complaint, which means that they’ll work hard to resolve the complaint as quickly as possible.”

It also advises the insured to “file a complaint with your state insurance department.” It says that “While the department may not help resolve your complaint, they will pass it on to the insurer. Most companies treat these complaints seriously.”

The full report, “Guide to Navigating the Auto Claims’ Maze,” can be found at Consumer Federation of America’s website.

By Young Ha |

Back in the day, tires typically would wear out before they got too old. Thinning treads is the consumer indicator that a tire needed to be replaced and, 30 to 40 years ago, that was probably around the 20 to 30,000-mile usage marker.

Nowadays, tires are more durable and can last upwards of 60 to 100,000 miles. The downside, however, is consumers are unaware that steel-belted radial ply tires, despite their toughness, face aging challenges because they are made of rubber, a product that oxidizes and hardens over time.

Older tires are vulnerable to catastrophic failures since excessive brittleness from oxidation can trigger tread and belt separations. Should those tires be attached to vehicles that travel roads in hot, dry climates, then those tires will deteriorate even faster.

The challenge with aging tires is they can hide their decrepitude, unlike a mature actor relying on injectables and plastic surgery for youthfulness. Unused new tires may be stored for years before installation and look pristine, but climate, handling, and storage can exact a toll indiscernible to visual examination.

William J. Woehrle, tire group leader at Peter R. Thom and Associates Inc. and a 45-year tire industry veteran, describes the impact of current tire use and purchase habits on the problem of aging tires:

“The used tire market in online venues like eBay is thriving in part because of a resale trade in full-sized spare tires that have been salvaged and sold as new or nearly new,” he explains. “Unfortunately, these ‘forgotten’ tires probably have been mounted, inflated, and stowed in vehicles and almost certainly never rotated into service. Instead, the spare tire’s inflation pressure has been slowly oxidizing the internal rubber between the belts and increasing the tire’s susceptibility to tread and belt separations—diffusing air through the tire at a monthly rate of one to two PSI.”

Currently, there is no U.S. industry standard for when tires should be removed from service. To compound matters, manufacturers do not plan to stamp expiration dates on their wares. European countries recommend 6 years of usage. In contrast, U.S. tire manufacturers either do not offer guidance as to tire shelf life or simply suggest removal or regular inspections of 6 to 10-year-old tires. As long as a tire does not show signs of checking or cracking (the only visual traces of tire aging) and was kept in climate-controlled storage, then it may be okay to use despite its age.

Enterprising policyholders can, however, decipher a date code marked on the tire’s sidewall to determine a tire’s age. That date code is contained within the tire’s serial number and is commonly imprinted on the inward-facing side of the tire, but chances are the figures noted will be somewhat cryptic. Unfortunately, as many retail tire shop employees do not know how to read date codes, consumer ignorance is not altogether unexpected as well.

Gregory J. Quan is a Managing Engineer at Peter R. Thom and Associates Inc., a national firm of consulting automotive engineers. He can be reached at (800) 874-1664 ; www.prtassoc.com.

The record number of natural disasters in the U.S. this year demonstrates the need for home and business owners to evaluate their risk of damage and take steps to reduce that risk ahead of time, says the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).

The federal government has declared 86 major disasters so far in 2011, surpassing the previous annual record of 81 last year. “No matter where you are located, you are at risk for one or more natural hazards that could significantly damage or destroy your home or business,” said Julie Rochman, president & CEO, IBHS. “A complete evaluation of how best to protect your specific property starts with knowing and understanding the type(s) of risks that may affect your area.”

To that end, IBHS provides a free ZIP Code-based tool on their public website at www.disastersafety.org. When a property owner enters their ZIP Code, a list of natural hazards common to the area is shown.

Once a property owner has identified the risks they may face, the next step is to determine their home or commercial building’s specific vulnerability. Then, they can use IBHS guidance to learn how to reduce the risk of damage or destruction. “There are many strategies a home or business owner can employ to prevent or greatly lessen the risk of property damage due to a natural disaster,” Rochman said. “Some of these protections come at a cost, but many of them are low- or no-cost options that require nothing more than a bit of effort on the part of the property owner.”

For example, to reduce a property’s vulnerability to wildfire, firewood and other highly combustible materials should not be located close to a home or business. This no-cost solution involves moving firewood and leftover building materials, as well as items such as wheelbarrows containing these materials, at least 30 feet from any structure.

Another example is to inspect the exterior walls of your property for gaps around pipes where they enter the walls. Also check for any gaps around electrical outlet boxes, junction boxes, circuit breaker boxes, disconnect switches and electric meters. Seal any gaps found with waterproof caulk. This will help prevent wind-driven water, such as the heavy rains that often accompany hurricanes and thunderstorms – as well as winter sleet and snow – from entering your building.

“These are just two examples of many low- or no-cost ways to reduce the risk of disaster-related property damage,” Rochman said. “IBHS’ website – www.disastersafety.org – provides home and business owners with free, step-by-step instructions and information on dozens of projects that will help your protect property.”

To arrange an interview with IBHS, contact Joseph King at 813-675-1045/813-442-2845, jking@ibhs.org or via direct message on Twitter @jsalking.

Many drivers can recall a near miss saved by the quick application of brakes, while a smaller number remembers pounding the brake pedal too late and crashing. What does this subset have in common? Significant numbers of them will blame their accidents on brake failure. Most of them will be wrong.

The reality is drivers judge distances poorly, especially when traveling at freeway speeds. Typically, they have no idea how their brakes behave in critical situations and consequently believe crashes result from mechanical malfunction, when in truth their brakes performed as designed, but their following distances were too short for their speeds. The standardization of electronically controlled antilock braking systems (ABS), which prevent wheel lockup and skidding during heavy braking, has compounded the problem because ABS can make strange grinding noises when it activates, leading untutored drivers to suspect braking issues. When coupled with a human tendency to avoid blame, brake failure becomes the commonplace excuse for many crashes.

As a result, a significant percentage of the workload for forensic automotive investigators is brake-failure examinations. Despite the frequency of the claims, actual malfunctions in these complex systems are rare, although they can happen. Investigation requires the input of a trained automotive specialist who knows where to look for problems in braking components to find the telltale evidence of failure. Often issues associated with neglectful maintenance by owners impede brake function, especially when optimal performance is required.

Brake Physiology

In a typical automotive disc-brake system, when the driver depresses the brake pedal, that pressure is transferred to a system of fluid-filled brake lines. The fluid then transmits the pressure to the calipers, clamping the brake pads against the brake rotors, which are attached to the wheels. The friction generated between the pad and the rotor provides the force that stops the vehicle. Loud squeaking from the brakes when applied usually signals brake pads that are reaching the end of expected use.

Wear and Tear

Pad or shoe wear from normal usage is the most common brake maintenance issue, and examining the parts of the braking system is typically the first step for a forensic investigator. He or she will look for unusual wear in the pads or shoes. That effort entails removing the vehicle’s wheels to access the brake pads and may require removing the pads for more precise measurement.

When an investigator removes the brake pads, he can also inspect the pad surface. A smooth, reflective quality may indicate “glazing” caused by overheating, which decreases stopping power. Overheating may also result in brake rotor discoloration, and is usually caused by excessive brake “riding” by the driver.

Less commonly, brake failures may be caused by excessive rotor or drum wear. With the wheels removed for the pad inspection, the brake rotors or drums can then be checked for thickness, diameter, and warping to ensure that they are within manufacturer specifications. Rotors and drums need replacement less frequently than pads and shoes, but excessive wear can contribute to brake failure, especially if the pads or shoes are similarly worn.

Examining Fluid Issues

In a typical hydraulic brake system, a brake fluid leak can result in complete brake failure if the fluid level drops too low. Such leaks can develop from excessive wear because of vibration or age, or from collision or roadway hazard damage. For example, an investigation of a suspected brake failure in a medium-duty truck that sustained significant crash damage in a freeway accident revealed that the truck had a brake-line design that allowed the primary fluid lines to rub against one another. The constant friction of the rubbing lines culminated in a sudden fluid leak and a complete loss of braking power.

Inspection for fluid leaks is simple and should be done by mechanics as part of routine maintenance. A forensic investigator examining a crashed vehicle will have little trouble spotting a leak, but determining its cause may be more complex, sometimes requiring laboratory examination with advanced equipment.

Another fluid-related cause of brake failure is the introduction of small air bubbles into the brake lines. Air bubbles occur when overheating brake fluid reaches the boiling point (brake fluid ages and has a limited usage life) or a slow leak allows air into the system. (A boiling point or other chemical test can determine if the vehicle’s brake fluid has exceeded its useful life.) The resulting bubbles interfere with the brake system’s ability to transmit braking force to the wheels, causing the brake pedal to feel softer than normal and making it very difficult to apply maximum braking effort.

Such a condition can contribute to an accident if a driver does not have sufficient stopping distance when facing a hazard. Once again, the way to avoid failures because of tainted or deficient fluid brake failures is proper preventative maintenance practices by the vehicle owner. This may include changing the brake fluid in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and regular brake bleeding to eliminate any air introduced into the system.

Potential Mechanical Problems

The most unexpected cause of brake failure that investigators may encounter is a mechanical failure in the brake pedal assembly. In rare cases it is possible for the master cylinder (the component that distributes the brake pedal force to the wheels) to become detached from the pedal linkage. This condition is immediately obvious to an inspecting investigator, so the real item of interest will be pinpointing the cause of the linkage failure, whether it is rust, tampering, or metal fatigue.

Tapping Accident Data

Increasingly, crash data retrieved from a damaged vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) is providing useful insight to accident investigators. If the module is accessible in a brake failure examination and has collected the crash event data, then the forensic investigator can gain insight about driver actions in the seconds that preceded and followed impact. A brake failure allegation could wither away if that data reveals that the driver never engaged the brakes prior to a collision. More likely, the data will deliver the context that will guide the further investigation of a brake failure allegation.

Perhaps the record will show that the driver was not speeding and applied the brakes suitably, but did not stop quickly enough to avert disaster. That could open the possibility of a brake problem that should be identified in the claims resolution process.

A brake failure from a maintenance issue could implicate a repair shop, thus identifying a subrogation opportunity, whereas an original equipment failure could result in a product liability action.

Managing Brake Failure Claims

While brake failure is probably the most common excuse for a crash, cumulative experience shows that driver error probably trumps actual brake malfunctions as the primary cause of accidents because of braking issues. Although it is easy to be swayed by a dramatic recitation of the crash story, if there is any doubt about the logic or sense of the event sequence, consult an automotive expert.

By Ryan L. Devine, Gregory J. Quan

December 16, 2011