U.S. drivers drove 1.2 percent fewer miles in 2011, NHTSA said.

Rebecca Lindland, director of automotive research for IHS Inc., said more and better air bags, higher seat-belt use and vehicles designed to allow people to survive a crash are the main reasons for the decline in traffic deaths in recent years.

The rate of fatalities per 100 million miles driven in the United States last year was 1.09, down from 1.11 in 2010 and down from 1.46 in 2005, NHTSA said.

Traffic deaths have fallen 26 percent since 2005, when 43,510 people died in crashes, NHTSA said.

Last year, the only U.S. region to have an increase in traffic deaths was California, Arizona and Hawaii, where fatalities rose 3.3 percent, NHTSA said.

SAFER VEHICLES

“Cars and trucks (including sport utility vehicles) are definitely getting safer and a big point is that they are co-existing on the road better,” said Lindland.

She said that since SUVs started to proliferate on American roads in the 1990s, SUVs and pickup trucks have been designed to cause less damage to lower-profile passenger cars.

The SUVs have lower bumpers and the areas where they would hit shorter cars is lower, and safer, she said.

She said that drivers are using seat belts at a higher rate and that passive safety measures like air bags are becoming more prevalent.

“The number would be even lower without distracted driving,” Lindland said.

NHTSA did not provide information on distracted driving deaths last year. But, in 2010, it said that some 3,092 were killed in “distracted-affected crashes,” which was 9.4 percent of overall road fatalities that year.

Thirty-seven of the 50 U.S. states have totally banned using the keyboard — texting — on a mobile phone or other device while driving, and 10 states have outlawed the use of handheld phones.

The states, along with the District of Columbia, that have banned phone calls while driving — without using a hands-free device — are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York and Connecticut.

(Reporting By Bernie Woodall; editing by M.D. Golan)

The report from the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board urges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to anticipate and address the safety issues “explicitly and proactively.”

The report says NHTSA will need to become more familiar with how manufacturers design safety and security into electronics systems, identify and investigate system faults that may leave no physical trace, and respond convincingly when concerns arise about system safety.

The study was requested in the aftermath of the 2009-2010 reports of sudden acceleration problems in Toyota vehicles. NHTSA attributed these events to drivers pressing the gas pedal by mistake and to two other issues — pedals sticking or becoming entrapped by floormats — remedied in subsequent safety recalls.

Although NHTSA concluded that errant electronic throttle control systems (ETCs) were not a plausible cause, the agency asked for further investigation by NASA, which supported NHTSA’s original conclusion. The agency also commissioned the Research Council study for advice in handling future issues involving the safe performance of automotive electronics.

The Research Council report finds NHTSA’s decision to close its investigation of Toyota’s ETC justified on the basis of the agency’s investigations. However, the report says it is “troubling” that NHTSA could not convincingly address public concerns about the safety of automotive electronics.

The report says that NHTSA will need additional specialized technical expertise in order to respond effectively to claims of defects in the more complex electronic systems that are coming.

“It’s unrealistic to expect NHTSA to hire and maintain personnel who have all of the specialized technical and design knowledge relevant to this constantly evolving field,” said Louis Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and chair of the committee that wrote the report.

He said NHTSA could name a standing advisory committee to interact with industry and with technical experts in electronics to keep abreast of these technologies and oversee their safety. “Neither the automotive industry, NHTSA, nor motorists can afford a recurrence of something like the unintended acceleration controversy,” Lanzerotti said.

The report recommends that NHTSA establish a standing technical advisory panel composed of experts on software and systems engineering, human factors and electronics hardware. The panel should be consulted on technical matters that arise throughout regulatory reviews, defect investigation processes, and research needs assessments.

One of NHTSA’s main roles is to spot and investigate safety defects that escape the automotive manufacturers’ own safety assurance processes and to order safety recalls when necessary. The report recommends a strategic planning process to guide the agency’s fulfillment of these responsibilities as cars become more technologically complex. In the future, the possibility of electronics leading to increasingly autonomous vehicles presents a new set of safety challenges and will demand even more agency planning and foresight, according to the report.

The report also recommends that NHTSA review its Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) to determine the specific capabilities needed investigate flaws in electronics-intensive vehicles.

The report endorses NHTSA’s initiative requiring installation of event data recorders (EDRs) on all automobiles to inform safety investigations. EDRs should be commonplace in all new vehicles, the report concurs. It also endorses NHTSA’s plan to conduct research in layouts for gas and brake pedals and intuitive designs for keyless ignition systems. It recommends that this study be a precursor to a broader human factors research initiative in collaboration with the automotive industry to ensure that electronics systems and drivers interact safely.

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

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

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.

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

While signaling a lane change on a deserted stretch of highway at 3 a.m. may seem unnecessary, that’s a situation that few people find themselves in regularly. Most people drive where their actions on the road have a direct effect on the other drivers sharing that same stretch of highway as well as on pedestrians.

The safe, thoughtful driver always signals lane changes and builds that habit. When other drivers can predict your behavior, everyone on the road is safer.

Think before you signal: You’re planning to turn right into the bank that’s on the opposite corner of the intersection. So when should you signal your right turn? Don’t confuse the drivers coming at you by putting your signal on too soon. They might just make a left turn in front of you. But do get that signal on before you turn. Some drivers deliberately don’t signal a lane change because they fear that the drivers in that lane will speed up and close the gap, shutting out their move. That might happen occasionally, but usually if you do signal other drivers are courteous and let you in. Not signaling is dangerous and could cause an accident.

The danger at intersections: Dangers abound at intersections. An estimated 80 percent of fatal city collisions happen at intersections that have stoplights. Why are they so deadly? Because many motorists travel at speeds approaching 50 miles per hour at intersections and crashes are often t-bone hits where one car is hit either on the driver or passenger door. As you enter an intersection on a green light, look left, then right, then left again. Make sure it’s visually clear before you enter it.

Yellow means slow down, not speed up to beat the red light: Red means stop whether it’s a sign or a signal. If it’s a signal, yellow means slow down and stop! It’s pretty simple. Running stop signs and lights cause many fatalities every year. And remember, a rolling stop is not a stop in the eyes of the law. Would you rather spend your hard earned cash on a ticket or on something enjoyable?

Backing up: Many people back up without looking and that causes many accidents each year. If you don’t believe it, next time you’re walking through a parking lot (don’t do this when driving, it will distract you) check out the back ends of the cars for damage that comes from accidents caused by backing up without looking. Sadly, each year children are run over at home when cars are backed over them. Backing down a roadway is never a good idea either and on limited access highways it’s illegal. Even if it was, it wouldn’t be safe.

Freeway and expressway driving: Freeways and expressways have their own set of driving rules. Closed access highways forbid many things: stopping unless for an emergency, backing up and staying out of emergency vehicle crossover lanes are typical. Because limited access highways usually have higher speed limits, it’s critical that drivers pay attention and follow the rules of the road. One of the most important things to learn as a driver is to properly use the acceleration and deceleration lanes for entering and exiting a freeway.

When you drive safely and courteously, whether you’re on a country road, a city street or a limited access highway you’ll find that most other drivers will be courteous as well. So drive safely and enjoy your trip and consider talking to Statewide Insurance (704)821-7630 if you’re in the market for auto insurance.

Renee KolzowDecember 6, 2011 11:15 amAuto, Featured Articles, On The Road, Safety on the Road

Six of 13 small cars recently evaluated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) earned the group’s top safety pick award, and none earned a poor rating in any of four tests.

This is a turnaround from a few years ago when small cars struggled to earn top safety ratings. The new tests include hybrids and gasoline-only models that are among the most fuel-efficient vehicles available in the U.S. market.

The ratings are based on performance in front, side, rollover, and rear impact evaluations. Cars that earn the top rating of good in each test and have available electronic stability control (ESC) qualify for top safety pick. Winners are the 2012 Ford Focus and Honda Civic, along with the 2011 Hyundai Elantra, Lexus CT 200h hybrid, Nissan Juke, and Toyota Prius hybrid. The Civic, CT 200h, Elantra, Focus, and Prius have at least one version with a government fuel economy rating of at least 40 miles per gallon on the highway. The Dodge Caliber, Honda CR-Z and Insight hybrids, Nissan Sentra and Versa, Scion xD, and Suzuki SX4 also were rated but didn’t earn Top Safety Pick.

“The list of cars with the best fuel economy now includes those with the highest crash test ratings in their class, too,” says David Zuby, the institute’s chief research officer. “At a time of high gasoline prices, consumers have never had a bigger selection of small cars that earn Top Safety Pick.”

The IIHS began awarding top safety picks for the 2006 model year with less stringent criteria than today. Then only three small cars earned the designation (Honda Civic, Saab 9-2X, and Subaru Impreza). Now 22 small models, including those the Institute tested previously, earn the award with tougher requirements including a roof strength test, an ESC requirement to help drivers avoid crashes, and a higher bar for rear impact protection.

Still, Zuby points out that small, lightweight cars “don’t protect their occupants as well as bigger, heavier ones. Even though fuel prices sometimes defy gravity, the laws of physics always are in effect for cars. That’s why it’s important that the crashworthiness designs of smaller cars be as good as possible. The new ratings demonstrate that small cars are much safer than they used to be.”

In the latest group, the Toyota Prius hybrid is a top safety pick and also one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the market, with estimates of 51 miles per gallon in the city and 48 mpg on the highway. Altogether, 10 small and minicar models with government fuel economy ratings of at least 40 mpg on the highway also earned top spots.

Small cars used to have the least safety equipment. Now all have standard side airbags, and in this group all but the Caliber, SX4, and Versa have standard ESC for preventing many kinds of crashes. Auto manufacturers put ESC on cars and SUVs after research by the IIHS and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration demonstrated the effectiveness of this feature. An IIHS study found that ESC reduces fatal single-vehicle crashes by up to 50 percent. The government will require standard ESC on all new vehicles, starting with 2012 models.

In 1997, when the institute first put small cars through its then-new 40 mph frontal offset test, none of the 11 small cars earned the top rating of good, and 3 were poor. The first results for small cars in the side test in 2005 were no more encouraging — none was good, and 14 of the 16 models evaluated earned the lowest rating of poor.

“Each time we’ve introduced a new test, automakers have stepped up and improved designs,” Zuby says. “Now it’s rare for any vehicle to earn less than a good rating in front, side, or rear tests, and automakers are working on rollover protection.”

The Hyundai Elantra’s results show how vehicle designs have improved. The 2001-03 Elantra was rated poor for frontal crash protection. A late-deploying airbag contributed to high forces on the driver dummy’s head and neck. Forces on both lower legs indicated that fractured bones and a foot injury would be possible in a real-world crash of similar severity.

The 2001-06 Elantra also earned a poor side rating, even with standard side airbags. The structure of the older Elantra allowed a lot of intrusion into the occupant compartment, and driver dummy injury measures indicated that rib fractures, internal organ injuries, and a broken left leg would be possible in a real-world crash. ESC wasn’t available on this version of the Elantra, even as an option.

Acceptable ratings in one or more evaluations kept 5 of the 13 small cars off the top safety pick list. That was the case for the Honda CR-Z and Insight, Nissan Versa and Sentra, and Scion xD. The Suzuki SX4 is rated marginal for rollover and rear protection. The Dodge Caliber is rated marginal for side protection, while it is acceptable in the rollover test. None of the cars recently tested earn a poor rating in any evaluation.

Source: IIHS

American drivers believe their own driving knowledge, ability and safe driving habits are well above other drivers on the road, according to a recent study by Allstate Corp.

Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of American drivers rate themselves as “excellent” or “very good” drivers. American drivers’ positive self-rating is more than twice as high as the rating they give to their own close friends — 29 percent “excellent” or “very good” — and also other people their age, 22 percent.

Drivers also don’t think much of the driving ability of people from surrounding states. Fifty-three percent rate them as “average” or “poor,” while just 8 percent rate those drivers as “excellent” or “very good.”

Others who American drivers rated lower than themselves include:

Teenage drivers received the lowest rating; 81 percent rated teenagers as “average” or “poor” drivers.
70 percent of Americans gave senior citizen drivers comparatively low scores.
Parents with very young children in the car received a mediocre rating, with 26 percent of American drivers rating this group as “excellent” or “good,” while 33 percent rate them as “average” or “poor.”
Even those with their own very young children are critical of their peers and rate themselves more than twice as high as “excellent” or “good” drivers — 64 percent — than they rate their fellow parents — 29 percent.
Men are more likely to rate themselves as “excellent” than women (36 percent versus 26 percent), as are college-educated drivers (35 percent) compared to those with no degree (28 percent).
Republicans also rate themselves higher (70 percent) than Democrats (61 percent) or Independents (61 percent).
Despite American drivers’ confidence in their abilities, many admit to practicing dangerous behaviors on the road.

Eighty-nine percent say they’ve driven faster than the posted speed limit, and 40 percent say they’ve driven more than 20 miles per hour over the limit.
Men are more likely to speed than women — 48 percent versus 30 percent.
Almost half (45 percent) say they have driven while excessively tired — to the point of almost falling asleep.
Fifteen percent say they have driven while intoxicated, with men almost four times more likely than women to have done so — 23 percent of men versus six percent of women.
More than one-third (34 percent) have sent a text-message or email while driving, but the prevalence of the practice changes by age group.
Those 18-29 years of age are the most likely to text while driving (63 percent) with drivers ages 30-44 not far behind (58 percent).
Texting while driving decreases with older age groups; only 25 percent of those 45-54, six percent of those 55-64, and two percent of those over 65 admit to the practice.
Most American drivers have caused some dangerous situations for others while driving.

Seven in 10 American drivers say that as a result of being distracted while driving, they have slammed their brakes or swerved to avoid an accident, missed a traffic signal, or actually caused an accident.
Fifty-three percent report having received a speeding ticket or other moving violation. Among these drivers, 44 percent say they have received three or more. More men say they have received a ticket than women — 61 percent vs. 46 percent — and those who have received tickets get more of them — an average of 4.3 per man compared to 2.6 per woman.
Fifty-six percent of American drivers say they have been involved in an accident, but only 28 percent of them say the accident was their own fault.
Regardless of confidence or high self-ratings, a significant number of American drivers experience concern about certain driving situations.

Two-thirds (64 percent) of American drivers say that driving in the snow, heavy rain or other bad weather is stressful and uncomfortable.
Fifty-six percent report the same about driving in heavy traffic, and 41 percent say that driving behind or near large trucks is stressful and uncomfortable.
Driving at night (29 percent stressful and uncomfortable), driving over a long bridge (17 percent), driving through a tunnel (13 percent), and driving on the highway (16 percent) rate lower on the stress scale.
The survey of 1,000 American adults was conducted July 13, 14, 16 and 17 via landline and cell phone and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Of the 1,000 adults, the survey identified 848 drivers who hold a license and drive at least occasionally. The survey was conducted by Financial Dynamics (FD) for Allstate.

The 7th annual GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test results projected that 18 percent of Americans—or 36.9 million people—would fail the test with a score of less than 70 percent.

Though the average score across the country was 77.9 percent, up from last year’s 76.2 percent average, 85 percent of test takers could not identify the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light, and about 75 percent were unaware of safe following distances.

The results revealed some interesting statistics:

Kansas held the top spot for the second year in a row with an 82.9 percent average score, while Washington D.C. fell to last place with a 71.8 percent average score. This marked the first time in four years that New York did not fall to the bottom spot.
More than 27 percent of women failed the test, while only 13.6 percent of men failed.
The Midwest was dubbed the best driving region, while the Northeast was considered the worst.
Thirty-four percent of drivers in New York and Washington D.C. failed the test.
Older drivers achieved higher scores than younger drivers. However, there were strong indications that the youngest test takers, aged 16-24, are becoming better drivers.
The survey took into account 5,130 licensed drivers aged 16-65 and included participants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The online exam consisted of 20 questions taken from state Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) exams, with regional differentiators, such as what to do when driving in a snow, eliminated to create a universal set of questions.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects manufactures to modify existing side curtain air bags to make them larger and deploy in all types of serious crashes, according to a regulation published on Thursday.

The ejection rule, which was years in the making, is the latest action by NHTSA to address rollovers since deadly crashes of Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicles linked to defective Firestone tires in the 1990s spurred congressional scrutiny and massive recalls.

“Rollover crashes are the deadliest of all crash types and this is another important step in our efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries that result from them,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.

Carrying out the mandate would cost manufactures roughly $31 per vehicle, or $400 million based on total annual U.S. sales of 13 million cars and trucks, which is what the auto industry forecasts for 2011.

Rollovers represent about a third of all crash deaths and were blamed for an average of 10,000 fatalities per year over the past decade, according to government statistics. About half of those killed in rollovers are ejected and most are ejected through side windows.

Strickland said the new rule would prevent, on average, 373 deaths and 476 serious injuries annually.

Industry has two years to begin phasing in changes, which must be standard by 2017.

The agency previously adopted tougher crash tests and mandates for electronic stability systems to help keep vehicles on the road.

Since the Firestone tire problem, manufacturers have redesigned many mid-size and smaller SUVs, including the Explorer, to lower their center of gravity. They are now called crossovers.

Regulators addressing ejection were also influenced by stubbornly high fatal crash statistics and studies showing that drivers and their passengers have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not thrown from their vehicle.

By John Crawley | January 18, 2011

(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)