Month: February 2017

Do you get claustrophobic when driving in a tunnel? If so, this story isn’t going to make your phobia any better, especially if you live in the Oakland area.

During Monday morning’s commute, 60 people were told to abandon their vehicles in the Caldecott Tunnel after an accident occurred and caused a smoky car fire in the far-right bore of the tunnel.

The California Highway Patrol said that no one was injured in the accident or subsequent fire, and motorists inside the tunnel were told to evacuate on foot, leaving their vehicles behind. 

The bore was shut down until firefighters had the blaze under control at 7:25 a.m. The tunnel was reopened at 11:15 a.m.

Luckily, the event unfolded nothing like the disaster in April 1982, when a chain-reaction accident involving a drunk driver, a loaded gasoline tanker and a speeding AC Transit bus caused an explosion that turned the westbound third bore into a deadly inferno.

Motorists couldn’t see that an accident had occurred because of the curvature of the tunnel, and they continued to drive in unsuspectingly. Some were lucky enough to flee their vehicles and escape, but others were trapped. A total of seven people were killed.

The tragedy led to a new law that prohibits trucks carrying flammable or poisonous loads from using Caldecott Tunnel, except between 3 and 5 a.m.

But even with the law in place, the tunnel is still a dangerous section of road as chain-reaction accidents can easily occur.

For example, in October of 2013 eight people were injured in an accident within the tunnel that caused a smoky fire to erupt.

While Oakland residents shouldn’t be fearful of the tunnel, they should always exercise added caution when driving through it as one negligent maneuver could potentially lead to a major ordeal.

We have previously written about the contradictory messages the auto industry seems to be sending to drivers. On one hand, new vehicles are increasingly offering “infotainment” systems that may include a dash-mounted touch screen and ways to wirelessly pair your cellphone to the vehicle in order to play music, take phone calls and send hands-free text messages.

On the other hand, automakers are also offering safety technology aimed at protecting drivers from their own bad choices – including distracted driving. According to a recent news article, General Motors has just announced a “Teen Drive” system to be included in the 2016 Chevy Malibu. It offers several features that may give parents peace of mind while annoying teen drivers to no end.

Parents can apparently set their own speed limits and maximum radio volume. When the car travels faster than the preset limits, drivers receive both visual and audio warnings from the vehicle. To encourage seat belt use, the Teen Drive system will reportedly mute the radio or a paired device if anyone in the front seat isn’t buckled up.

The new Teen Drive system even acts as a snitch to report unsafe driving behavior. Parents are able to get a readout of their teen’s driving behaviors, including indications of how often preset limits were violated.

Although this is being marketed as a way to keep tabs on teen drivers, motorists of all ages might do well to set some predetermined limits on their own potentially dangerous behaviors behind the wheel.

But will features like the Teen Drive system really create more responsible drivers? It is being offered by General Motors, after all, which currently has a poor reputation for its vehicle safety issues and lack of accountability.

Until or unless cars become fully automated, safe driving will always be a choice. Gadgetry may offer some help, but we must each accept that we are responsible for our own safety every time we get behind the wheel.

Source: PC Magazine, “Chevy Malibu ‘Teen Driver’ Tech Will Snitch if You Speed,” Angela Moscaritolo, March 20, 2015

Although train travel is not nearly as big in the United States as it is in Europe and Asia, it is clear that trains aren’t going away. In fact, when the bullet-train line that carries passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles is completed, California will be the first state in the nation to utilize this type of high-speed rail.

As the project continues through the planning stages, the California High-Speed Rail Authority recently made an important decision. It has announced that whenever the line intersects a road for automobile traffic, it will either tunnel under it or pass over it on an elevated platform. In other words, there will be no “grade” crossings.

This decision was an important one for numerous reasons. First of all, the train is slated to travel at 200 miles per hour. Any ground-level crossing where it intersects with a road would likely require the train to slow down and would also increase the risk of an accident.

But this announcement also highlights an important safety hazard affecting California and nearly every other state. Grade crossings (where cars and trains intersect on the same level) are more dangerous than most people realize. There are just under 251,000 grade crossings in the United States, and in 2013 there were a total of 2,096 train vs. car accidents. Last year, accidents at grade crossings resulted in 239 deaths.

Individual rail crossings can be upgraded to decrease the risk of accidents. But this type of infrastructure improvement is expensive, and most governments (local, state and federal) are either unable or unwilling to spend the money.

When driving through rail crossings, vigilance and focus are crucial. It doesn’t matter if the crossing sees little train traffic or heavy train traffic. In fact, lightly traveled crossings can be even more dangerous because drivers are less likely to keep a lookout.

If you regularly encounter grade crossings, please ensure that you slow down, look and listen for trains each and every time you cross.

Source: Insurance Journal, “Replacing Unsafe Train Crossings Deemed Too Expensive,” Michael B. Marois, Feb. 26, 2015

Most Bay Area residents are well aware of the controversy surrounding Uber and other ride-sharing services. While these services promise reliable transportation at prices well below those of taxi companies, they seem to be less than reliable when it comes to legal issues regarding insurance coverage.

On New Year's Eve in 2013, an Uber driver in San Francisco struck and killed a 6-year-old pedestrian as she crossed the street in a crosswalk. This devastating accident and others since then have raised public awareness of two important issues regarding insurance coverage and distracted driving.

Most personal insurance policies prohibit drivers from using their vehicles for commercial transportation purposes. Those who accept fares usually need a more comprehensive insurance policy. Uber and other companies have said in the past that their insurance can supplement any additional liability costs.

But when that fatal pedestrian accident occurred, Uber was quick to distance itself from any responsibility or liability. The company claimed that the driver was not working for Uber when the accident occurred. The driver was waiting for a fare but did not have a passenger in the vehicle at that exact moment.

The other complaint against services like Uber and Lyft are that their smartphone apps – which are needed to do the job – greatly increase the risk of distracted driving accidents. With Uber, drivers are offered a potential fare via an alert on their smartphone. They then have just 15 seconds to decide whether or not to accept it.

While a driver could tap the screen and accept the fare without looking, that doesn't seem realistic. They need to know where the fare is in order to make a decision. In light of this, ride-sharing services seemingly violate California's stringent laws against cellphone-related distracted driving.

Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services may seem like a much cheaper alternative to established and entrenched taxi companies. But if those savings mean increased distracted driving and inadequate insurance coverage, perhaps ride-sharing services are not so affordable after all.

Source: The New York Times, "Distracted Driving and the Risks of Ride-Hailing Services Like Uber," Matt Richtel, Dec. 21, 2014

Earlier this month, we told readers that April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month across California. All this month, the California Highway Patrol and local law enforcement agencies have been cracking down (more than usual) on texting and other cellphone use behind the wheel. Safety advocates have also been trying to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving.

It should be noted that distracted driving is a dangerous practice even if the driver is engaged in the service of public safety. Police officers, ambulance drivers and other operators of emergency vehicles are increasingly causing serious accidents while distracted by in-vehicle technology. This prompts the important question: When it comes to distracted driving, who will police the police?

According to a news story that first ran in late 2014, distracted emergency-vehicle drivers in California have injured at least 140 people and killed at least three people in the last couple years. Other state data shows that over the past decade, the number of emergency vehicle crashes caused by distracted drivers has increased by 122 percent. To be clear, these statistics involve crashes where emergency vehicle drivers were distracted and therefore deemed at fault.

Most squad cars these days come with what is basically a laptop mounted between the two front seats. This is in addition to two-way radios and a host of other gadgets. While some law enforcement agencies have clear policies about not using this type of technology while driving, others have unclear and inconsistent policies or no policies at all.

In order to do their jobs effectively, drivers of emergency vehicles need driving allowances that the rest of us do not have. Speeding is a good example. But because distracted driving cannot be done safely – even by highly skilled drivers – shouldn’t emergency vehicle drivers be held to the same standards as the rest of the public?

Source: Los Angeles Daily News, “Distracted driving on the rise for police, fire and ambulance drivers,” Brenda Gazzar, Oct. 6, 2014