ST. LOUIS and ATLANTA, Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/ --
Today, in a continuing effort to make the nation's roads safer, GMAC Insurance and its non-profit partner Road Safe America announced survey results revealing that many American drivers are unsure of proper vehicle operational procedures when driving in freezing temperatures. The survey, which sampled licensed Americans from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, indicates that more than one- third of drivers cannot correctly identify the proper use of cruise control, and nearly two-thirds underestimate how full they should keep their gas tanks.
Specifically, the survey found that 36 percent of licensed drivers -- approximately 72 million people -- believe it's safe to drive with their cruise control activated if the temperature is below freezing. However, the two organizations assert that the safest course of action is to avoid using cruise control altogether. Despite clear weather, accumulated moisture on roadways combined with freezing temperatures could lead to icy conditions, which are sometimes undetectable.
Respondents were also unclear on the minimum amount that should be in a vehicle's gas tank: 31 percent indicated it didn't matter, four percent responded one-eighth of a tank, 28 percent answered one-quarter tank and 37 percent said one-half tank. GMAC Insurance and Road Safe America recommend keeping the gas tank as full as possible (at least one half full), maximizing the length of time vehicle occupants can run the engine as a source of heat in an emergency.
Gary Kusumi, president and CEO of GMAC Insurance, points out that while not all Americans live in areas that experience freezing temperatures, it is important for everyone to understand proper vehicle operational procedures.
"As responsible drivers, we should have a good idea of proper driving protocols in a variety of circumstances," Kusumi said. "It's critical to know how to stay safe in situations that we don't necessarily encounter every day, such as driving during freezing weather."
Ready, Set, Go: Five Steps To Prepare For Winter Travels
In addition to driving without cruise control activated and keeping gas tank levels at least half full, GMAC Insurance and Road Safe America compiled the following checklist to help keep people safe and prepared for driving in freezing temperatures:
1. Create a Safety Kit. Be prepared with safety essentials in your car, including extra windshield wiper fluid, warm gloves and a hat, flashlight, remote jump starter, tire gauge, safety flares and a blanket.
2. Give Your Vehicle a Check Up. Avoid unnecessary accidents by taking a few minutes to check your vehicle before heading out: -- Use a small tire gauge to check your tires, as cold weather will lower their pressure. -- Make sure taillights, headlights, blinkers and the horn are in good working order.
3. Play it Safe in the Dark. With shopping season in high gear, heavy traffic is more common, and nightfall comes earlier. When driving at night: -- Avoid using any light inside your vehicle. -- Use edge lines and center lines of the roadway as guides. -- If street lights cause glare, dim your dashboard lights and use your sun visor.
4. Prevent Glare. Snowfall and other precipitation can serve up severe road glare: -- Be prepared with a pair of sunglasses. -- Avoid foggy blotches on your windows by cleaning the inside of your windshield regularly. -- Consider using winter wiper blades designed to handle heavier road debris and snow.
5. Buckle Your Bundles. Loose gifts can be dangerous distractions, and according to a GMAC Insurance survey, less than half of drivers (43 percent) secure their packages on the floor or buckle them down. Avoid "projectile presents" by driving slower and securing gifts in the backseat or placing them on the floor.
The survey was administered by TNS, a leading market information resource and the world's largest provider of custom research and analysis. The national sample was comprised of 5,175 total licensed respondents, aged 16-60+, balanced to the latest U.S. Census data.
For more information about GMAC Insurance, visit www.gmacinsurance.com. For more information about Road Safe America, visit www.roadsafeamerica.org.
Showing posts with label auto safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auto safety. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Study: Vehicle Crash Tests Predict Car But Not Truck Safety
Frontal crash tests in laboratories are strong predictors of passenger cars' safety on the road, though they fail to accurately project driver fatality risks for trucks, according to a recent Virginia Commonwealth University study.
The study examined the frontal crash test ratings that vehicles received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, and compared them to fatality rates in the vehicles. It also compared a smaller sample of test ratings given by the privately funded Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, which uses a 40-percent frontal offset crash test, with the vehicles' fatality rates.
The results indicate that the crash tests held by NHTSA and the IIHS are successful in predicting real-world crash outcomes for passenger cars -- the ratings NHTSA and IIHS bestowed on passenger cars generally matched the cars' safety record on the road. However, the ratings for trucks did not match real-world outcomes. For example, in the case of both NHTSA and IIHS, trucks that received the worst possible crash-test rating had on average lower driver fatality rates than trucks that received the best possible crash-test rating.
"If you're thinking about buying a passenger car, then the crash test scores can be useful to you," said study co-author David Harless, professor of economics in the VCU School of Business. "But if you are thinking of buying a truck, we have no evidence that the tests are meaningful in terms of real-world performance in serious crashes."
The study was published in the September issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Harless and co-author George Hoffer, professor of economics at VCU, limited their research to instances of multiple crash tests in a given vehicle line, controlling for the differences in driver behavior in different lines of vehicles. The study examined the testing of vehicles in the 1987-2001 model years. IIHS had fewer vehicle lines to review, because it did not begin its testing program until 1995. The study authors urged caution concerning their findings regarding the IIHS tests, particularly for trucks, because of the small sample of vehicle lines they were able to include in their research.
Hoffer said questions have persisted over the years about the value of NHTSA's frontal crash test ratings because of the difficulty of simulating a real-world crash in a laboratory. A tiny percentage of automobile accidents mirror the circumstances of a direct head-to-head collision between vehicles of similar size – the scenario NHTSA creates in its lab tests.
However, Hoffer said, "it turns out that the government does as good a job as the private sector does at predicting the relative death rate for passenger cars. The tests can be seen as complimentary of each other, though they are quite different."
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University
The study examined the frontal crash test ratings that vehicles received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, and compared them to fatality rates in the vehicles. It also compared a smaller sample of test ratings given by the privately funded Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, which uses a 40-percent frontal offset crash test, with the vehicles' fatality rates.
The results indicate that the crash tests held by NHTSA and the IIHS are successful in predicting real-world crash outcomes for passenger cars -- the ratings NHTSA and IIHS bestowed on passenger cars generally matched the cars' safety record on the road. However, the ratings for trucks did not match real-world outcomes. For example, in the case of both NHTSA and IIHS, trucks that received the worst possible crash-test rating had on average lower driver fatality rates than trucks that received the best possible crash-test rating.
"If you're thinking about buying a passenger car, then the crash test scores can be useful to you," said study co-author David Harless, professor of economics in the VCU School of Business. "But if you are thinking of buying a truck, we have no evidence that the tests are meaningful in terms of real-world performance in serious crashes."
The study was published in the September issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Harless and co-author George Hoffer, professor of economics at VCU, limited their research to instances of multiple crash tests in a given vehicle line, controlling for the differences in driver behavior in different lines of vehicles. The study examined the testing of vehicles in the 1987-2001 model years. IIHS had fewer vehicle lines to review, because it did not begin its testing program until 1995. The study authors urged caution concerning their findings regarding the IIHS tests, particularly for trucks, because of the small sample of vehicle lines they were able to include in their research.
Hoffer said questions have persisted over the years about the value of NHTSA's frontal crash test ratings because of the difficulty of simulating a real-world crash in a laboratory. A tiny percentage of automobile accidents mirror the circumstances of a direct head-to-head collision between vehicles of similar size – the scenario NHTSA creates in its lab tests.
However, Hoffer said, "it turns out that the government does as good a job as the private sector does at predicting the relative death rate for passenger cars. The tests can be seen as complimentary of each other, though they are quite different."
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)