Insurer Chubb Corp (CB.N) received 35 percent more claims for car-animal collisions in the first three months of 2012 than it did for all of 2011, the company said on Wednesday.

If those figures hold across the industry, they would mark a sharp reversal. State Farm, the country’s largest auto insurer, has reported a decline in car-deer incidents for three years running, through last summer.

In a post on the company’s risk blog, Chubb executives speculated the warm weather may have pushed both people and animals onto the roads.

“It is difficult to pinpoint exactly why the numbers have risen, but I suspect the unusually mild winter may have made for a more active wildlife population,” said Ray Crisci, worldwide auto manager for Chubb’s personal insurance unit, adding that conditions may have led people to drive more, too.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the winter of 2011-2012 was the fourth-warmest ever in the United States.

Car-animal collisions may not seem high-risk, but they account for roughly 4 percent of light vehicle crashes and some 200 deaths annually, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said.

Based on an estimated insured cost of $2,800 per collision, according to the Insurance Information Institute, that represents a cost of nearly $700 million a year.

(Reporting By Ben Berkowitz; editing by John Wallace)

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 same survey showed that 48 percent said they had seen one or both of their parents using a cell phone without a hands-free device.

Nevertheless, last year there were the fewest traffic fatalities in the United States in more than six decades.

The number would have been even lower if not for traffic deaths caused by drivers who were distracted by using a mobile phone or engaged in other types of attention-dividing tasks, said Rebecca Lindland, director of automotive research for IHS Inc.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that in 2010, some 3,092 were killed in “distracted-affected crashes,” or 9.4 percent of all road deaths.

A NHTSA survey earlier this year showed that younger drivers from ages 18 to 20 showed the highest level of phone involvement in crashes or near-crashes. Drivers of this age are three times more likely to read or send an email or text message while driving than those 25 and older, the NHTSA survey found.

Reports of texting while driving drop sharply as age increases, NHTSA said.

The Consumer Reports survey said that half the young drivers survey said they are less likely to text while driving or use a handheld phone while a friend is in the vehicle with them.

A NHTSA observational study found that in the latest two years for which data was available, 2009 and 2010, 5 percent of drivers were seen talking on handheld phones.

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.

The Consumer Reports survey questioned 1,049 people ages 16 to 21 and the NHTSA survey from earlier this year questioned 6,000 people of driving age. Both surveys were of U.S. drivers.

(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Jackie Frank)

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.

In other words, according to study author Bryan Reimer, “Just because you have your eyes on the road doesn’t mean you have your mind on the road.”

The research, published last month in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, cuts straight to the heart of the distracted driving debate. Not only does it show that voice-operated infotainment systems and hands-free phones may not be the fix that automakers and policymakers have hoped for, but it also opens the door for more studies that may find better ways to manage distractions behind the wheel.

Voice Control

Back in December, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) called for an all-out ban on cellphone use among drivers, drawing complaints from industry and consumers alike that such a prohibition would be impossible to enforce and not entirely necessary.

More realistically, NHTSA and automaker trade group Auto Alliance worked on guidelines for what car manufacturers can do to reduce driver distraction. Among their recommendations: Limit the amount of off-road glances, manual inputs and time spent with hands off the wheel, and completely disable such intense visual-manual activities as texting and entering phone numbers or addresses.

So far, most automakers have worked to reduce distraction by replacing touch screens and buttons with voice commands. In the most recent models to hit showrooms, voice-activated infotainment systems such as Ford’s Sync supplanted and supplemented rows of buttons and knobs. (Ford declined to comment on this study, although they did provide support for AgeLab’s research.) According to the MIT study, however, a switch to voice control is far from a panacea.

“Voice applications have nothing to do with where you’re looking, but they can force a huge cognitive load on the driver,” said Reimer. Like the number-repetition task that the Reimer and his fellow researchers gave to their subjects, having a conversation or shouting out voice commands can lead to “tunnel vision” — a distraction that some drivers may not even recognize when their hands aren’t holding a phone or turning a dial.

“Policymakers need to be very aware that it’s the cognitive demand that’s the issue, not the issue of holding a phone,” Reimer said. “Hands-free technology does not make driving and technology safe. It can make it even more problematic when people perceive they’re doing something that’s safer.”

Quantified Distraction

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s best to ban all in-car communication. Rather, Reimer hopes that the study findings will spur additional research into what levels of distraction are inappropriate while driving.

When the MIT team analyzed its data, it found an interesting and statistically significant result: As the difficulty of the number-repetition tasks increased, so did the cognitive load of the subjects. Reimer didn’t push them to the point of an unsafe level of distraction — there are already enough folks like that on 93 North, after all — but the research does show that being distracted isn’t a binary condition.

This opens up a conversation about just how much a driver can be distracted, and encourages discussions about which risks and tradeoffs are sometimes tolerable and which are never appropriate. “We can begin to quantify things,” he said. “There’s gray in the middle.”

“In this case here, we’ve shown that just repeating a series of numbers increases cognitive load in a way that’s detectable. But is that really dangerous? Probably not,” he said. As those tasks become more difficult, though — or as a phone conversation becomes more involved — it is very possible that distractions can become a threat to safety.

Reimer offered up text messaging as just one example of an action that no driver can competently devote cognitive resources to while safely piloting a moving vehicle. Indeed, texting while driving a truck makes an accident almost 24 times more likely.

Some distractions become less safe depending on the level of cognitive load involved. “A quick phone call that says, ‘Honey, I’m running late because I’m stopping to get a loaf of bread’ is much different than, ‘Honey, I’m late because I’m stopping to see a divorce attorney,’” said Wade Newton, spokesman for the Auto Alliance.

The problem is that drivers don’t know their own limits — and those limits can rapidly change as cognitive load increases and decreases during the course of a drive. “The big question is how to make it so drivers can do the things we know they’re going to do in a safer way,” Newton said. Reimer and Mehler’s study moves toward answering that question, by quantifying the level of distraction at which driving becomes inherently unsafe.

Technology and Responsibility

Perhaps the most interesting application of the the study findings involve future ways to reduce in-car distractions. So far, automakers and policymakers alike have relied on blanket solutions — blocking out navigation systems while the car is in motion or banning text messaging while driving, for example.

Unfortunately, drivers don’t always know their own limits and still willingly engage in distracting behavior, often while unaware of the potential consequences.

If a driver doesn’t somehow flout prohibitions on texting or entering data onto a computer screen, a ban is still a blunt tool for achieving distraction-free driving, and doesn’t address the myriad other distractions a driver may face — from fellow passengers to dashboard lights. The MIT AgeLab research shows that learning more about what specific behaviors indicate increased cognitive load can help further focus a driver’s attention on the road in real time.

The AgeLab’s test car (right) was fitted with sophisticated sensors that made it possible for researchers to analyze a driver’s cognitive load. Reimer envisions cars of the future equipped with similar technology that can instantly recognize when a driver is in over his or her head.

For instance, if a car can sense that a driver is exhibiting that “tunnel vision,” a car could cue the driver to end a hands-free phone call. Even simplifying a dashboard readout during times of high cognitive demand could help remove unnecessary distractions.

“The technology would alert the operator they’re functioning in an area where they’re really not capable,” Reimer said.

For now, though, it’s up to drivers to determine when they’re in over their heads. And it’s up to researchers like Reimer and Mehler to inform policymakers and carmakers alike of the most effective way to minimize distractions.

DMV Commissioner Mike Robertson told The Charlotte Observer that he thinks the increase happened because his agency began cracking down on garages that pass vehicles shortly after they fail at another shop.

About 1.2 million vehicles failed inspection in 2011. That’s about 15 percent of the vehicles registered with the state. The DMV reported about 400,000 failed inspections in 2010.

The DMV said the most common reasons for failing inspection are faulty windshield wipers, stoplights, license plate lights and tires.

A spokesman for Gov. Beverly Perdue said she will review the report amid suggestions that state should abolish inspections or limit them to older vehicles.

The committee’s decision came months after Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin announced there would be no changes in auto rates this year.

Lawmakers have been debated auto reforms for the last several years without being able to find a consensus on any changes. Complicating the issue is that the industry is split on the subject and Goodwin has constantly opposed any changes in the ratemaking process.

Sen. Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson) said he didn’t necessarily see the need for major reforms, but added that something needed to be done to stimulate competition.

“We can bring the rates down for the majority of the good drivers,” Apodaca told reporters. “I don’t know what the answer is, but I do think we need to do something.”

Any major change to the market would include a restructuring of the North Carolina Reinsurance Facility, which provides coverage to 1 million of the state’s 5 million drivers.

Roughly 25 percent of those divers are considered bad risks and pay rates around 30 percent higher than other drivers. However, the other 75 percent of drivers in the risk pool are considered clean risks who are not covered by private insurers due to underwriting criteria. For example, unemployed individuals, people in the military or those with low credits scores often end up in the high risk pool despite having a clean driving record.

Since those drivers pay lower risk pool rates, the pool has an annual shortfall of $150 million. As a result, all state drivers end up paying a surcharge of $20 per year.

FAIR NC, a coalition of insurers that include State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., Geico, USAA, and Allstate, is in favor of making changes to the risk pool to promote competition. One idea floated by committee is to allow insurers to charge higher rates for clean risk drivers, thus reducing the surcharge on all drivers.

FAIR NC Vice President Kathy Feinburg said right now there is little incentive for insurers to cover those clean drivers since there are no restrictions on what risks may be sent to the risk pool. As a result, insurers can “cherry-pick” the market and guarantee profits.

“Lawmakers have the opportunity to turn this around and provide North Carolina driver with a system that brings transparency and competition to our state,” Feinburg told the committee.

Much of the prospects for reform turn on the state’s method of setting rates, which is unlike any in the country. Instead of each insurer filing their rates separately with the state Department of Insurance, all 160 companies operating in the state file their rate requests with the North Carolina Rate Bureau. The bureau in turn proposes a statewide base rate on behalf of the companies, which must be approved by the insurance commissioner.

The Heartland Institute said in a report that the state’s ratemaking methodology is antiquated and prevents insurers from responding to changes in the market.

“The insurance product mix available to North Carolina consumers is behind the times,” Lehrer said. “This is largely because of the cumbersome rate bureau. It’s just too much trouble for companies to offer innovations.”

That may be the case, but as far as premiums level go, North Carolina’s auto policies are among the lowest in the southeast.

According to insure.com, where researchers list actual quotes to policyholders as opposed to company revenues, North Carolina’s average premiums equaled $1,154 as compared to average rates for South Carolina at $1,095, Virginia at $1,272, and Tennessee at $1,146.

Independent Insurance Agents of North Carolina Vice President of Insurance Operations Stuart Powell said the state’s low rates do present a potent argument against reform.

“A better marketplace may not be a cheaper marketplace,” said Powell.

By Michael Adams

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Statistics: In December 2011 the Transportation Department released a report showing that there were an estimated 3,092 fatalities linked to distracted drivers in 2010. The number cannot be compared with the 5,474 distraction-related fatalities reported in 2009, because the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) used a new measure called “distraction-affected crashes” to arrive at its estimation. The new measure is designed to focus more narrowly on crashes in which a driver was most likely to have been distracted by dialing a cellphone or texting or by an outside person or event. NHTSA’s previous measure, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), recorded a broad range of potential distractions, such as careless driving and a cellphone being present.

Research: Studies about cellphone use while driving have focused on several different aspects of the problem. Some have looked at its prevalence as the leading cause of driver distraction. Others have looked at the different risks associated with hand-held and hands-free devices. Still others have focused on the seriousness of injuries in crashes involving cellphone users and the demographics of drivers who use cellphones. Of increasing concern is the practice of texting and, with the growth of popularity of so-called smartphones, high-tech cellphones with computer-like features, surfing the Internet while driving.

The following is a summary of some recent research on the issue.

An online survey of almost 900 drivers released by State Farm in December 2011 found that use of mobile web services has increased dramatically over the last two years. Concerning drivers ages 18 to 29 accessing the internet on a cellphone while driving increased from 29 percent in 2009 to 43 percent in 2011; reading social media networks while driving increased from 21 percent to 37 percent over the same period; and updating social networks while driving increased from 20 percent to 33 percent. However, 64 percent said they engaged in texting while driving in 2011, down from 71 percent in 2009. The numbers of drivers of all ages who acknowledged texting while driving stayed relatively flat at 32 percent in 2011 and 31 percent in 2009.

According to the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety’s 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index, while the vast majority of motorists say that distracted driving behaviors are a very serious threat to their safety, many admitted to talking on a cellphone, texting or emailing while driving. Nearly 25 percent of those surveyed said they had read or sent a text or email while driving in the last month and nearly 70 percent admitted talking on the phone. About 50 percent said cellphone use should be completely banned while driving.

The percentage of drivers who were text messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased significantly from 0.6 percent in 2009 to 0.9 percent in 2010, according to the National Highway Safety Administration’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey.

Driver hand-held cellphone use remained at 5 percent in 2010. These results are from the Public Attitude Monitor 2010: Texting While Driving, a survey released in November 2010 by the Insurance Research Council, found that 18 percent of drivers in the U.S. reported texting while driving in the last 30 days. This figure includes 31 percent of drivers age 16 to 24, 41 percent of drivers age 25 to 39 and only 5 percent of drivers 55 and older.

A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), released in September 2010, found that texting bans may not reduce crash rates. The study looked at collision claims patterns in four states—California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington—before and after text bans went into effect. Collisions went up slightly in all the states, except Washington, where the change was statistically insignificant. Adrian Lund, president of HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said that the findings “call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes. They’re focusing on a single manifestation of distracted driving and banning it. This ignores the endless sources of distraction and relies on banning one source or another to solve the whole problem.”

State and Federal Initiatives: In December 2011 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that all states prohibit drivers from using cellphones, the first federal agency to call for a complete ban on telephone conversations from behind the wheel. Although the NTSB has no enforcement authority as the federal government’s leading advocate for safety, its recommendations are influential in Congress and the White House.

In September 2010 the Governors Highway Safety Association decided not to endorse a proposal calling for a total ban on cellphone use by drivers. In response to a California proposal calling for the group to ask state legislatures to consider a complete ban, the association questioned whether the prohibition could be enforced.

In March 2010 the Treasury Department proposed that an interim plan prohibiting texting by drivers of interstate buses and trucks over 10,000 pounds announced by Transportation Secretary LaHood in January be made permanent. On October 1, 2009 President Obama signed an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving. The order applies to employees using cars or cellphones provided by the government or using their own cars or phones for government business. The order applies to some 4.5 million federal employees, including the military.

The number of state legislatures debating measures that address the problem of cellphone use while driving and other driver distractions continues to rise. As of December 2011 ten states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah and Washington State—plus the District of Columbia had laws on the books banning the use of hand-held cellphones while driving, according the the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. Almost all of the laws have “primary enforcement” provisions, meaning a motorist may be ticketed for using a hand-held cellphone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Also as of December 2011, 35 states and the District of Columbia banned the practice of texting with a cellphone while driving. Most of these laws have primary enforcement provisions. The Utah law, passed in May 2009, is the toughest in the nation. Offenders convicted of causing an accident that injures or kills someone while texting behind the wheel face up to 15 years in prison. The law does not consider a crash caused by a multitasking driver as a accident but rather as an inherently reckless act, like drunk driving.

New Technology: A number of cellphone companies are considering developing technology that will prevent people from receiving calls and texting while driving. The technology is intended to limit dangerous distractions by temporarily interrupting service so that people do not answer their phones when they are behind the wheel. One carrier has already introduced a service that automatically disables rings and alerts and sends calls to voice mail when phones are in a moving car. Some safety advocates said that it is unclear whether consumers would avail themselves of the technologies or whether the technologies would be effective.

Businesses: Businesses are increasingly prohibiting workers from using cellphones while driving to conduct business. Exxon Mobil and Shell are examples of large companies that ban employees’ use of any type of cellphone while driving during work hours. The California Association of Employers recommends that employers develop a cellphone policy that requires employees to pull off the road before conducting business by cellphone.

Court Decisions: In December 2007 International Paper Co. agreed to pay a $5.2 million settlement to a Georgia woman who was rear-ended by one of its employees. The employee was driving a company car and talking on a company cellphone at the time of the accident. The settlement was reached even though the employee had violated her company’s policy of requiring the use of hands-free headsets while driving. The suit is among the most recent of several cases where an employer has been held liable for an accident caused by a driver using a cellphone. (See background section on Employer and Manufacturer Liability.)

BACKGROUND

Cellphones play an integral role in our society. However, the convenience they offer must be judged against the hazards they pose. Their use contributes to the problem of inattentive driving, which also includes talking, eating, putting on make up and attending to children.

As many as 40 countries may restrict or prohibit the use of cellphones while driving. Countries reported to have laws related to cellphone use include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Most countries prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving.

Supporters of restrictions on driving while using a cellphone say that the distractions associated with cellphone use while driving are far greater than other distractions. Conversations using a cellphone demand greater continuous concentration, which diverts the driver’s eyes from the road and his mind from driving. Opponents of cellphone restrictions say drivers should be educated about the effects of all driver distractions. They also say that existing laws that regulate driving should be more strictly enforced.

Earlier Studies: Over the past decade numerous studies have been conducted on driver inattention, in particular focusing on the use of cellphones. Below is a summary of some these studies.

Motorists who use cellphones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The results, published in July 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use will not necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hand-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn’t vary with type of phone.

Many studies have shown that using hand-held cellphones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A study from researchers at the University of Utah, published in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, concludes that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model. An earlier study by researchers at the university found that motorists who talked on hands-free cellphones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.

A September 2004 study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that drivers using hand-free cellphones had to redial calls 40 percent of the time, compared with 18 percent for drivers using hand-held sets, suggesting that hands-free sets may provide drivers with a false sense of ease.

A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the NHTSA, broke new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The newer study found that the most common distraction is the use of cellphones, followed by drowsiness. However, cellphone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times, talking or listening on a hand-held cellphone only increased the risk by 1.3 times.

Employer and Manufacturer Liability: Although only a handful of high-profile cases have gone to court, employers are still concerned that they might be held liable for accidents caused by their employees while driving and conducting work-related conversations on cellphones. 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. In response, many companies have established cellphone usage policies. Some allow employees to conduct business over the phone as long as they pull over to the side of the road or into a parking lot. Others have completely banned the use of all wireless devices.

In an article published in the June 2003 edition of the North Dakota Law Review, attorney Jordan Michael proposed a theory of cellphone manufacturer liability for auto accidents if they fail to warn users of the dangers of driving and talking on the phone at the same time. The theory holds that maker liability would be similar to the liability of employers who encourage or demand cellphone use on the road. Holding manufacturers liable would cover all persons who drive and use cellphones for personal calls. Michael notes that some car rental agencies have already placed warnings on embedded cellphones in their cars.

The forecasters issued an initial announcement a few weeks ago, but this is the first forecast where they have issued a prediction for the number of tropical events.

“We have witnessed cooling of the tropical Atlantic during this past winter, and there is a fairly high likelihood that an El Nino event will develop this summer,” says Klotzbach in a statement. “Typically, El Nino is associated with stronger vertical shear across the tropical Atlantic, creating conditions less conducive for storm formation.”

In its April forecast, the team is predicting that of the 10 named storms, four will become hurricanes and two of those will be major hurricanes.

A major hurricane is a category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale with sustained winds of 111 mph and higher.

The hurricane season runs from June 1 through Nov. 30.

The team says there is a 42 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will strike the U.S. coastline; 24 percent chance that a major hurricane will make landfall on the U.S. East coast; 24 percent chance a major hurricane will make landfall on the Gulf Coast from Florida Panhandle to Brownsville, and a 34 percent chance a major hurricane will track into the Caribbean.

Gray says that despite the below-average forecast this year, the Atlantic Basin hurricane activity remains in a highly active multiple decade period that has been going on since 1995 and is expected to continue for the next 10-15 years.

The team says it plans to issue updates to its forecast on June 1 and Aug. 3.

By Mark E. Ruquet, PropertyCasualty360.com

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.