Automated Driving Systems

IS DEFENSIVE DRIVING RELEVANT?

Vehicle crashes often make the news, especially if there’s a fatality. A crash that occurred on May 7, 2016, was no exception. However, interest in the story was heightened because the car, a 2015 Tesla Model S, was equipped with multiple electronic systems designed to avoid a crash.

The car was eastbound on US 27 near Williston, Florida, and struck the side of a tractor trailer that was making a left turn across traffic. There was no traffic light controlling the intersection. The driver of the Tesla did not brake or take any evasive action. The car struck the trailer, passed underneath it, and then traveled nearly 300 feet and struck a utility pole where it came to a stop. The driver of the Tesla died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash.

Tesla system performance data downloaded from the car indicated that vehicle speed just prior to impact was 74 mph (the speed limit was 65 mph). System performance data also revealed that the driver was operating the car using the advanced driver assistance features Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer lane keeping assistance. The car was also equipped with automatic emergency braking that is designed to automatically apply the brakes to reduce the severity of or assist in avoiding frontal collisions.

Since the driver died in the crash it’s not possible to know exactly where he was focusing his attention just prior to the crash. However, it certainly seems likely that he engaged the Tesla’s automated systems and then turned his attention elsewhere. The major focus of the post crash investigation was to discover why the Tesla’s systems failed to intervene and that investigation is ongoing. One theory is that the car’s systems failed to see the white trailer against the bright sky background.

Tesla’s owner’s manual contains several warnings related to the electronic systems. One of those relates to the Autosteer function and says that “Many unforeseen circumstances can impair the operation of Autosteer. Always keep this in mind and remember that as a result, Autosteer may not steer Model S appropriately. Always drive attentively and be prepared to take immediate action.”

This crash has sparked a lot of discussion about how these electronic systems should evolve, what the driver’s responsibilities should be, and how to best integrate “smart” systems into the operation of any vehicle. Given the fact that Tesla didn’t regard the car’s system as capable of operating the vehicle without human oversight it seems an obvious conclusion that the driver of the car could have easily avoided the crash had he remained aware of the surrounding traffic situation. That is certainly a basic of defensive driving.

Now that we’ve raised the issue of defensive driving, what about the truck driver’s actions? The Tesla struck the side of the trailer 23 feet from the rear as the truck made a left hand turn across the path of the car. Was the truck driver driving defensively? Although the driver of the car may have been able to avoid the crash by taking evasive action, the very fact that he would have been compelled to do so seems to indicate that the truck should not have made the left turn in front of the approaching vehicle.

This discussion leads us right into preventability. Could the driver have taken reasonable action to have avoided the accident? The answer for both drivers is undoubtedly “yes”. The Tesla driver was most likely totally unaware of what was happening and the truck driver misjudged the oncoming vehicle and began a turn that he couldn’t reasonably complete without interfering with oncoming traffic.

Electronic systems have already been incorporated into vehicles. Anti lock brakes are standard and several other technologies are advancing rapidly and may soon be required in new vehicles. However, the real story that this accident underscores is that defensive driving is not going out of style, and certainly won’t be replaced in the foreseeable future.

It’s more important than ever that professional drivers maintain situational awareness, make sound defensive decisions, and now, more than ever, be vigilant for drivers who are inattentive.

Enhanced Investigation

USED TO MEASURE SAFETY CULTURE

Many of you have been through at least one compliance review and are familiar with the process. To a large degree the investigators use documents to verify compliance with various federal regulations. Generally the person in charge of safety and possibly a few other carrier employees interact with the investigators, answer questions, and supply requested documents. However, FMCSA has decided to take things to the next level.

They have deployed a new training program to help investigators become more efficient and reveal safety deficiencies. Over the past several years FMCSA has been providing training on Enhanced Investigative Techniques.
This training encourages investigators to pursue leads, verify records with additional sources, and employ advanced enforcement tools.

Under this program, asking to look at records of annual DOT equipment inspections is no longer enough to verify regulatory compliance. They may want to have a one-on-one conversation with the maintenance manager, even the mechanic who performs the inspections. You can even expect them to want to interview drivers, sales staff and any other staff member that they feel might play a role in safety. What the investigators are trying to determine is what the carrier’s safety culture is. In fact, you can expect them to use the internet and even social media to get a picture of the organization.

Based on that knowledge, if there’s concern about whether or not you’re ready for a compliance review, taking a look at the driver qualification files and other documents is no longer enough. You need to go beyond the basics, beyond the obvious, and take a look at the underlying culture. This means going beyond the obvious safety messages and having a corporate policy that stresses compliance.

The people performing the tasks have to understand the regulations, know how to apply them, and there must be strong management support to avoid making exceptions based on convenience or cost. At it’s highest level, having a truly integrated safety culture means that decision makers would take a service failure instead of a failure to comply with established corporate policies and federal regulations. Are you up to that challenge?

You can count on us to provide expert guidance to keep your safety and compliance programs on track.

Ryan Billet
National Transportation Consultants, Inc.