Posted by Benji Riggins on January 28, 2012 under Interesting Info | 
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a Canadian auto insurer, released last week a list of top excuses from local motorists when they were caught using handheld cellphones while driving.
The insurer compiled the information with help from the local police department, which went on a month-long crackdown in September on distracted driving. Police estimate they issued more than 3,500 tickets.
Motorists getting distracted by holding a cellphone in one hand and making or receiving calls while driving is also a common problem in the United States.
Since the first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning handheld cellphone use while driving, there has been debate as to the degree of hazard, according to the New York-based Insurance Information Institute.
A survey conducted by State Farm in November 2010 found that 74 percent reported making or receiving calls at least once a week while driving.
Here are the top 10 excuses the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia compiled of local drivers who were caught using handheld phone devices while driving:
1. This is a bogus law.
2. It was my boss on the phone – I had to answer it.
3. I wasn’t using it – I just like to hold it.
4. Sorry officer, I didn’t see you trying to pull me over because I was on my phone.
5. But it was an emergency call to my wedding planner.
6. My Bluetooth died.
7. Driver: I’m using my speakerphone. Police officer: No, you’re holding your phone in one hand and steering with the other.
8. I’m not driving; I was stopped at a red light.
9. I wasn’t talking, I was checking my messages.
10. I was just checking the time.
Posted by Benji Riggins on January 4, 2012 under Safety |
Brake Failure Investigations
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
Tags: auto ins, auto safety, brake failure, brakes, car ins, car safety, driving safety, insurance agency, insurance agent, Safety, stopping power, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 29, 2011 under Safety |
If you’ve ever turned a corner without a signal only to be blasted by a honking horn – and maybe an obscene gesture from the driver behind you – you’ve set off a driver for whom not signaling is a pet peeve. That’s most drivers. When surveyed on their pet peeves, many drivers first mention others who don’t use turn signals when turning or making lane changes.
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
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance quote, auto safety, car ins, car insurance quote, car safety, driver safety, driving safety, insurance agency, insurance agent, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on November 7, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Those who view their car as an extension of themselves have stronger aggressive driving tendencies, a new study finds.
The study “Aggressive Driving: A Consumption Experience,” by a Temple University Fox School of Business professor, is thought to be the first to comprehensively examine how personality, attitude and values contribute to aggressive driving behaviors.
Driving is one of the most common consumptive behaviors, and aggressive driving causes a third of all accidents that involve personal injuries and two thirds of all fatal accidents in the United States.
“It explains much of the phenomenon we knew existed,” said Ayalla Ruvio, lead author and an assistant professor of marketing at the Philadelphia university. For instance, “we know men tend to be more aggressive drivers and we know men tend to see their cars as an extension of themselves more than women.”
Ruvio’s article, published online in the Journal of Psychology & Marketing, takes a consumer behavior perspective of this phenomenon and features two studies conducted in Israel. One took a holistic look at the influence of personality, attitudes and values gathered from 134 surveys of men and women with an average age of 23.5. The second study, of 298 people, built from the first and added the factors of risk attraction, impulsivity, driving as a hedonistic activity and perceptions about time pressures.
The studies found:
•People who perceive their car as a reflection of their self-identity are more likely to behave aggressively on the road and break the law.
•People with compulsive tendencies are more likely to drive aggressively with disregard for potential consequences.
•Increased materialism, or the importance of one’s possessions, is linked to increased aggressive driving tendencies.
•Young people who are in the early stages of forming their self-identity might feel the need to show off their car and driving skills more than others. They may also be overconfident and underestimate the risks involved in reckless driving.
•Those who admit to aggressive driving also admit to engaging in more incidents of breaking the law.
•A sense of being under time and pressure leads to more aggressive driving.
The study findings “suggest that the perception of the car as an extension of the self leads to more aggressive behavior on the road rather than increased driving cautiousness,” the authors wrote, adding that “individuals may view cars and the road space they occupy as their territory and will seek to maintain control over it and defend it as necessary.”
Ruvio said the implications of this study can be seen in numerous cultural contexts because of the strong link between cars and identity. She points to the “soccer-mom” stigma of minivans, the Thelma and Louise personas, and songs such as Shania Twain’s “You Don’t Impress Me Much,” with its line, “I can’t believe you kiss your car goodnight.”
Source: Temple University, Philadelphia
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 20, 2011 under Interesting Info |
WASHINGTON—The insurance industry is trying to build support for Senate bill provision establishing minimum requirements for state-graduated driver licensing (GDL).
In an effort to energize the public behind the bill, for example, Allstate conducted a survey and presented the results to members of the Senate showing that nearly 6 in 10 Americans favor the provision.
According to Allstate officials, the survey results show that support for a national law corresponds with low opinions about teen-driving skills, which received the lowest ranking among all ages surveyed.
Eighty-one percent of respondents rate teenagers as “average” or “poor” drivers.
“Results from this survey show that Americans clearly understand that GDL laws can help save lives, and that a majority of them support a legislative solution that safely introduces teen drivers to the road,” says Bill Vainisi, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Allstate.
“What’s needed now is national leadership in the form of uniform standards for those GDL laws,” he adds.
Melissa Shelk, vice president of federal affairs for the American Insurance Association (AIA), says, “Car accidents are the number-one killer of teenagers in the United States, and the provision, if enacted, would slow this dangerous trend and spare thousands of families the heartbreaking loss of a teenage child.”
Shelk states, “The idea behind GDL laws is simple: minimize risk while maximizing experience. With GDL programs, teens gain driving privileges commensurate with their developing skills and good judgment.”
She contends, “Research shows that if every state had strong GDL laws, 175 deaths and about 350,000 injuries could be prevented each year.”
The Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP) Act is pending in Congress as part of the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011, which has recently been introduced in the Senate.
The STANDUP Act provision is also known as “Mariah’s Law,” named after an Arkansas teen killed in a crash involving texting.
Another purpose of the bill is to urge the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to increase the reliability and performance of electronic systems which operate and control critical vehicle safety systems. It will also seek to provide consumers with improved access to government information regarding safety-related information, recalls and safety defects.
The STANDUP Act calls for uniform standards restricting teen nighttime driving, limiting the number of passengers in a teen’s car, prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving, and issuing permits and licenses with specific age requirements and through a gradual, multi-phased process.
By Arthur D. Postal, PropertyCasualty360.com
NU Online News Service, Aug. 9, 2:16 p.m. EDT
Posted by Benji Riggins on August 10, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Each year, GMAC Insurance conducts a survey to determine how many American drivers would meet today’s basic requirements to obtain a driver’s license.
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.
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance, auto insurance nc, auto insurance North Carolina, auto safety, car ins, car insurance, car insurance nc, car insurance north carolina, car safety, driver safety, driving safety, insurance agency, insurance agent, Safety, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on April 4, 2011 under Interesting Info |
There may be more on the line in major sporting events than many sports fans think.
Closely contested major sporting events are followed by a significant increase in traffic fatalities for fans of the winning team, according to new research from North Carolina State University.
“A previous study showed that traffic fatalities increased in the hours following the Super Bowl. We wanted to see if that held true for other high-profile sporting events and, if so, whether the number of fatalities was influenced by whether the game was a close one,” said Dr. Stacy Wood, Langdon Distinguished Professor of Marketing at N.C. State and lead author of a paper describing the research. “Are blow-outs more dangerous because they’re boring, and people may drink more? Or are close games more dangerous because the excitement drives up testosterone levels?”
Games rated as nail-biters are far more likely to result in traffic fatalities — but only for fans of the winning team.
Wood and researchers from the University of South Carolina (USC) evaluated traffic fatalities after 271 games played between 2001 and 2008, including championship, tournament and rivalry games in professional and college football and basketball. The researchers looked at traffic fatality data in the area where the game was played, and in the hometowns of the winning and losing teams.
The researchers also used a panel of experts to rate how close each game was on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being a blow-out and 5 being a nail-biter.
They found that traffic fatalities increased significantly after close games, and that games which were rated as nail-biters were far more likely to result in traffic fatalities than blow-outs. Each increase in the closeness rating was associated with a 21 percent increase in fatal accidents at the game site. To go from a blow-out to a nail-biter resulted in a 133 percent increase in observed fatal accidents.
Furthermore, researchers found that the increase in fatalities occurred only in places where there were winners – the site of the competition and the hometown of the winning team. “This pattern of results is important in that it suggests that the cause of the relationship might be associated with competition-induced testosterone,” Wood said.
“During a close game, testosterone increases for the fans as well as the players – that has been established by previous studies,” Wood said. “After the game, testosterone levels drop for the losing side, but spike for the winning side. Because testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior and potentially aggressive driving, we hypothesize that this may play a role in the increased number of traffic fatalities in areas with a high proportion of winning fans.”
The paper, “The Bad Thing about Good Games: The Relationship between Close Sporting Events and Game-Day Automobile Fatalities,” is forthcoming from the Journal of Consumer Research and was co-authored by Dr. Melayne Morgan McInnes, a professor of economics at USC, and David Norton, a Ph.D. student at USC.
N.C. State’s Department of Business Management is part of the university’s Poole College of Management.
Posted by Benji Riggins on March 30, 2011 under Interesting Info |
North Carolina lawmakers already have banned young drivers from using cellphones and everyone else from texting or emails while behind the wheel. Now they’re considering whether to go further.
A House Commerce subcommittee debated a measure Wednesday that would make using a cellphone while driving illegal unless the motorist can talk hands-free, such as using a Bluetooth or a voice-activated phone.
Fines would be $100 or more but wouldn’t lead to driver’s license points that could result in higher insurance premiums. There would be exceptions for making 911 calls and for law enforcement officers and first responders performing official duties.
Like previous debates that led to restrictions on new drivers and texting, the committee’s discussion centered again on whether safety and enforcement trumps personal freedoms to dial while driving.
Chief bill sponsor Rep. Garland Pierce, D-Scotland, who sponsored the texting ban bill in 2009, said the extra limitations are worth protecting the public on the roads. Eight states and the District of Columbia already ban the use of hand-held phones while driving, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“We’ve got to send a message ourselves we’re willing to (choose) convenience over highway safety,” Pierce told the committee. “It’s about highway safety — your family, my family — getting home safe at night.”
Studies show distracted driving contributes to automobile accidents, said Tom Crosby, a spokesman for the AAA Carolinas motor club, which backs the limit to hands-only calling.
A 2008 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved a form of driver inattention seconds before the accident. Cellphones are a primary cause of inattention, the study said.
But some lawmakers questioned how the law could be enforced or whether cellphones are the greatest distraction.
The bill could be “another reach by the government to tell us what we can or can’t do,” said Rep. Craig Horn, R-Union. “To me holding a hot cup of coffee is a whole lot more distracting because if that thing spills, we’re all going to be hurting.”
Coffee is very different from a phone that you hold to your head, countered Rep. Bill Brawley, R-Mecklenburg.
“When you’re going into traffic, you don’t have to pick the cup of coffee up,” he said, and “the cup of coffee doesn’t talk to you, so it’s easy to ignore.”
Similar broad bans have failed to get traction in the legislature in recent years, but House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, said he’s interested in finding ways to reduce the number of accidents caused by inattention. He visited the state Highway Patrol’s training track last month with Pierce to drive golf carts while talking on a cellphone.
“There’s a compelling amount of statistical data that says distracted driving is causing accidents in this state,” Tillis said this week. “It’s increasing insurance rates and it’s having other negative outcomes.”
Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said he’s been opposed to cellphone restrictions but expects the fate of a bill like Pierce’s would be considered by the entire chamber and not just him.
The committee heard from a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who was struck in September by a car driven by a fellow student who was on the phone, according to Joe Capowski, who witnessed the accident from the deck of his home.
“Since then, my life has been totally disrupted,” said the student, Krista Slough of Charlotte, who was hospitalized with a cerebral hemorrhage. Today she still deals with severe headaches and fatigue.
Capowski, a former UNC-Chapel Hill professor, said studies show drivers using hands-free phones aren’t any safer than drivers with hand-held phones and a motorist who is considered legally drunk. He urged the Legislature to ban cellphone use completely while driving.
“Tell me about one phone call that is so important that it justifies endangering other people on the roads to the same extent as a drunk driver does,” he told lawmakers.
Written by
Gary D. Robertson
Posted by Benji Riggins on March 4, 2011 under Interesting Info |
N.C. legislator wants to use revenue from the tickets to help schools.
Automated speed cameras had a brief history in North Carolina, but they might have a big future.
The state would start using cameras to nab speeders around schools and road construction sites under new legislation filed by Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat.
Glazier wants a pilot program to authorize speed cameras in up to 15 school zones and 15 highway work zones at a time. It would continue for 15 years, with the potential to generate millions of dollars from speeding tickets worth $125 to $250 apiece.
That brings up the purpose of Glazier’s bill: Use speed cameras to repay a big state debt to N.C. schools.
A 2008 ruling by the N.C. Court of Appeals found that $748 million in various civil penalties collected across the state over nine years should have been paid to local schools – but wasn’t – under language in the state Constitution. So far, the legislature has paid down only $18 million of that debt.
Under Glazier’s proposal, 25 percent of the speed camera ticket proceeds would go straight to an existing schools fund, to use for driver education. The other 75 percent would be paid to local schools to “satisfy the judgment” against the state in the 2008 ruling.
“We believe this is a great way to do it,” said Leanne Winner, spokeswoman for the N.C. School Boards Association, the plaintiff in that court case. She said her group helped Glazier draft the bill.
“This will generate dollars to help the state pay off the judgment, and it will provide safety in areas that we know are very unsafe: work zones on state-maintained roads, and school zones.”
Speed cameras measure how fast a car is moving, as a live officer would do with a radar gun, and snap photos of the speeders’ license plates. The car owners get tickets in the mail, along with photos and other evidence.
Police in Charlotte used 22 speed cameras to nab 43,000 violators in 2005. Authorities said the cameras made city streets safer, with less speeding and fewer crashes. Highway safety experts at the University of North Carolina said the same thing.
But a ruling in a related court case forced Charlotte to switch off its speed cameras in 2006, after using them for only two years.
Charlotte had used most of the fees collected from speeders to finance the camera program technology. The court said that money belonged instead to the schools. City leaders said they couldn’t afford to start spending local tax money for the cameras.
Charlotte was the only city with speed cameras, but it was one of several forced in the same case to stop using similar cameras to catch red-light runners. (Raleigh and Cary still have red-light cameras because the law that authorized them has not faced a similar court challenge.)
Glazier’s bill proposes civil penalties close to what a driver would face with a regular ticket: $250 for speeding in a highway work zone, $125 for speeding in a school zone. No insurance points would go on the driver’s record. Signs would be posted to warn drivers of the speed cameras ahead.
There are plenty of questions about how the camera system would work and how much money it would raise. Glazier could not be reached for comment Monday.
Reduced speed limits around schools are posted only for school days – and only for a few hours a day, when children are walking and biking to school in the morning and home in the afternoon. Other states have used speed cameras to reduce accidents around schools, Winner said.
DOT does not cut speed limits around road-work sites as frequently as it did in past years, and it long ago dropped the “highway work zone” language still used in state law. Nowadays, DOT engineers are likely to post reduced speed limits – with flashing signs that warn of $250 penalties – for only a few hours or days at a time.
Mikael Gross, a legislative staff attorney who helped draft Glazier’s bill, said it would be up to DOT to decide where and how to use the cameras.
Glazier would have DOT pay for the cameras, estimated at $11 million a year, from its Highway Fund. DOT would recoup the cost by reducing money it now transfers to schools for driver education, about $31 million a year, Gross said.
By Bruce Siceloff
bruce.siceloff@newsobserver.com
Posted: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/22/2081823/speed-cameras-may-be-on-the-road.html#ixzz1Enj0PuBE
Posted by Benji Riggins on October 25, 2010 under Safety |
At a glance:
Help protect trick-or-treaters by following these driving safety tips on Halloween, or on the night your community hosts Halloween activities. Be especially careful between 4 and 8 p.m., when most severe vehicle/young pedestrian collisions happen.
Drive slowly, and don’t pass stopped vehicles. The driver might be dropping off children.
Park your mobile phone. Avoid distractions by waiting until you’ve stopped to call, text, or surf.
Watch for children darting into the street. Kids can cross the street anywhere, and most young pedestrian deaths happen at spots other than intersections.
Yield to young pedestrians. Children might not stop, either because they don’t see your vehicle approaching or don’t know how to safely cross the street.
Communicate with other drivers. Always use your turn signals. And if you have to pull over to drop off or pick up your kids, turn on your hazard lights.
And, to keep your own trick-or-treaters safe:
Teach them how to safely cross streets. They should look both ways and cross only at corners and crosswalks.
Consider indoor community Halloween programs for younger kids. Some communities also offer to help you inspect your kids’ treats to make sure they’re safe to eat.
Brighten them up. Give them flashlights and glow sticks, and/or use reflective tape on their costumes, so drivers can see them.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
