Baytown accident lawyers note that studies of the topic of drowsy driving wrecks have concluded that between 20% and over 50% of accidents result from driver fatigue. Drowsy driving remains an under reported cause of wrecks, in part because there exists no objective, definitive test to measure driver fatigue after an accident occurs. Some studies have determined that between 30% and 50% of fatal accidents can be attributed at least in part to drowsy driving. One government study concluded that more than 50% of single vehicle accidents result from driver fatigue.
Our Baytown accident lawyers emphasize that wrecks caused by a driver falling asleep at the wheel tend to generate higher costs than most other types of accidents in terms of vehicle damage, fatal injuries, permanent disabilities, disfigurements, and catastrophic injuries. At the time a drowsy driver causes an accident, he generally has lost all attention to the road and his driving environment. And a number of other factors can enhance the dangers from a drowsy driving wreck:
If you’ve been harmed in a wreck caused by a drowsy driver, you might be entitled to full monetary damages to compensate you for your injuries. Contact our experienced Baytown accident lawyers for a free legal consultation and case evaluation. Learn about your available legal remedies against the drowsy driver who harmed you. Call 877-307-9500 (toll free) or use our convenient web contact form.
Texas accident attorneys note that states like Florida, California, and Texas that have large numbers of older drivers also experience alarming numbers of fatal accidents caused by senior drivers. In many of these accidents, the elderly drivers simply lose control of their vehicles. Or they apply the gas pedal when they should have been applying the brake. They might put the car in drive, when they meant to reverse. The older drivers might have vision problems, or they might fail to look behind their vehicles before backing out.
These older drivers simply might make a bad driving decision or react too slowly to a driving situation. In any event, innocent victims lose their lives because these drivers probably shouldn’t be driving any longer. You can download our Texas accident attorneys’ free book on coping with serious Houston accidents to see what steps you need to take in the event you or a loved one are injured by another driver.
But coping after the fact doesn’t prevent the accidents from occurring in the first place. Our Texas accident attorneys point out that since the 1950s, the United States has actively worked to create a society utterly dependent on cars and driving. Only in Manhattan can one really escape the need to drive. Many of today’s senior drivers came of age at the dawn of the U.S. car-dependent era. Some of these drivers might well realize that they shouldn’t be behind the wheel anymore. Indeed, they might prefer to leave driving behind if they could. But without a car and a license to drive, many of these drivers face isolation and an inability to obtain many of the daily necessities of life lie groceries.
In trying to balance the needs of the various segments of our society, all but 17 U.S. states have developed some program that requires older drivers to be re-certified and re-tested before they can renew a driver’s license. Some of these programs start at the age of 69, while others don’t kick in until age 80. And our Texas accident attorneys can’t help but notice that all of them fail to account for the fact that people age at different rates.
Many people are seriously debilitated before age 80. And some people are quite capable drivers well into their 80s. Some programs just require the same vision retesting that some states require of all drivers renewing their licenses. Other state programs require the older driver to appear in person to renew. Almost none require a driving test upon renewal, primarily because such a test is quite expensive to implement. And our Texas accident attorneys remind you that the debate over elderly driver licensing fairly ignores the fact that seniors, like other people, will probably just take to driving without a license if they feel they must.
In Florida, a couple of recent highly publicized accidents where elderly drivers backed over and killed innocent victims has inflamed the debate regarding licensing of older drivers. In one incident, an 89-year-old driver drove up onto a sidewalk in front of Wal-Mart, ran over, and killed a 78-year-old who had been in the store to return an item. In another accident, an 88-year-old driver backed over and dragged a fellow parishioner to death after church let out. Florida statistics show that 2010 saw 442 fatal accidents involving drivers aged 65 years or older, representing a full 15% of the state’s traffic accident fatalities.
California has an even larger population of senior drivers than Florida. And Texas also has a substantial number of elderly drivers and related accident fatalities. In Dallas, for instance, city residents were outraged when a 90-year-old driver recklessly struck and killed a teenager that was on the way to school.
Our Texas accident attorneys emphasize that fatal accident statistics involving older drivers are trending upward as the population ages. So the debate over renewing licenses for older drivers will likely continue to heat up as well. The challenge remains to find an equitable solution to the problem in a nation that’s created a car-dependent culture.
Our Houston injury lawyers can’t emphasize enough how important it is to keep those who’ve been drinking from driving. If you know someone’s been drinking and you know that they intend to get behind the wheel and drive themselves somewhere, do what you can to stop them. Or alert authorities that might be able to stop them for you before a tragedy occurs.
Just this past Saturday evening, a drunk driver ran down two very young boys while they were standing on their own porch with their family having a bar-be-que. They had probably felt themselves safe there. Until Luis Hector Lopez drove his Crown Victoria up onto the porch and killed one young boy. The wreck caused the other young victim to suffer burns over nearly half his body. One young boy is gone. The life of the other boy will never be the same. The whole family will be traumatized by the shadow of this terrible accident probably their entire lives.
This accident so clearly demonstrates the unacceptable cost of letting someone drive drunk. It’s been shown that after a drinker has had a few drinks, he reaches the point where he’s no longer capable of determining on his own the risks and consequences of his drinking. It’s up to more sober people to stop him from getting behind the wheel.
Once again, our Houston injury lawyers urge everyone to do everything in your power to prevent drunken driving. If you know you’re going to be drinking, arrange for a cab or designated sober driver in advance. If you see someone else under the influence, don’t let them behind the wheel. Get a sober driver. Or get the authorities. Just don’t allow more young lives to go to waste because a driver chose to get wasted.
Learn what you can do if a loved one is harmed by a drunk driver. Download our Houston injury lawyers’ free book on the steps to take after a serious Houston wreck.
Houston car crash lawyers note that recent years have seen an increasing focus on teen driving safety and awareness. Indeed, MAP-21, a recent vehicle and highway safety initiative passed by the U.S. Senate, contains provisions aimed at encouraging implementation of graduated drivers’ licensing requirements for teens in all U.S. states.
Texas has a graduated drivers’ licensing (GDL) program that commenced in 2002. Texas also has “Teens in the Driver’s Seat” (TDS) a peer-to-peer program in which teens try to increase safety awareness and safe driving habits among fellow teens. And Texas is the only state to see an actual decrease (each year since 2002) in the number of fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-olds.
Our Houston car crash lawyers point out that counties with the TDS program have seen a 14% decrease in teen injury and fatal crashes when compared to those Texas counties without the TDS program. TDS focuses on the biggest risks for teen drivers: driving distracted (for instance, texting while driving), driver fatigue, drunk driving, speeding, driving at night, and failure to buckle up.
The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) emphasizes that car crashes remain the leading cause of death for U.S. teens. Our Houston car crash lawyers mention that the highest risk is to teen male drivers. And the risk to rural teen drivers is twice the risk to urban teens.
The IIHS also specifies that the car crash rate is four times higher among drivers in the 16- to 19-year-old ranger than for those 20 and older. Breaking the statistic down further, the crash rate for 16-year-olds is almost twice as high as the rate for 18- and 19-year-old drivers.
Some of the steps you could take to enhance your teen’s safety behind the wheel include:
Even the most careful driver can encounter danger on the road, despite all the best safety precautions. If you or a family member have been injured in a serious crash and you need help dealing with the aftermath, download our Houston car crash lawyers’ free book on the steps to take following a serious Houston wreck. Learn how you could obtain a full financial recovery for your injuries from the negligent party that caused your wreck.
Houston accident lawyers point out that the difficulty is not just the endless miles of roadway between point A and point B. The problem also comprises the dangerous drivers and elevated risks of crash injury on the city’s roads. And it’s not just Houston. According to the annual survey in Men’s Health Magazine of the places with the most dangerous drivers, Texas hosts 6 of the 20 most dangerous places to drive:
The magazine’s list isn’t just based on the fear level a sensible person experiences as they try to safely navigate the city streets. It’s based on numbers like accident statistics, particularly fatal wrecks, alcohol-related incidents, hit-and-run accidents, speeding, cell phone use, distracted driving laws, and the numbers of years between accidents.
Of course, if you live and drive in any of the Texas cities on the magazine’s list, you didn’t really need their survey to tell you what you already knew. You see the vast numbers of wrecks, DWI incidents, and tragic traffic-related deaths reported in your daily news. You see them happening around you as you drive.
You might quietly wish for a better public transportation system so that you didn’t have to drive. Of course, if you’re in Dallas, that wouldn’t help you anyway. The city has apparently stood by as thugs have overrun DART and recently, murders have occurred on the public transportation system on a regular basis.
So our Houston accident lawyers realize that the likelihood remains that if you have to be on the road in Texas, you’re unfortunately likely to encounter an injury accident situation at some point. Learn the steps you need to take to successfully cope with the aftermath of a difficult accident.
Our Galveston car accident attorneys have written in another blog about the viewpoint of the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and some other safety advocates that proclaim that the presence of red light cameras at intersections reduces accidents and saves lives.
But other safety advocates and organizations maintain that the IIHS arguments are flawed and their use of data biased. The National Motorist Association (NMA), for instance, conducted its own study on red light cameras. The NMA studied many different cities of all different sizes throughout the United States. (Our Galveston car accident attorneys point out that the IIHS data focused only on 14 similar cities.) The NMA study found that these cities experienced increased numbers of accidents at intersections equipped with red light cameras.
Indeed, some of the statistics following accident rates at red light camera-equipped intersections indicate that the majority of the accidents experienced are rear-end collisions caused when a driver suddenly stops to avoid going through a red light and getting a ticket.
Our Galveston car accident attorneys emphasize that rear-end collisions can cause severe injuries to drivers and passengers in both vehicles. Particularly if the collision involves a smaller vehicle rear-ending a heavy truck and suffering an underride accident, the results could even be fatal. The case for red light cameras at intersections is not an “open and shut” case. Much controversy remains.
Governments support the cameras as an easy revenue generating measure in hard economic times. But the costs of the cameras to you might be much higher than the cost of a red light running ticket. A rear end collision entry because another driver tried to avoid a ticket could result in extensive medical bills and ongoing medical costs. So our Galveston car accident attorneys suggest that you take a look at some of the data on red light cameras before you give them your unqualified support. The data seems to indicate that in some cities and at some intersections the cameras pose more of a hazard to your safety than not.
Galveston car accident lawyers understand that red light cameras have their ardent fans and their detractors. Among the fans are government revenue collectors, some insurers, and some safety advocates. Supporters of the red light cameras believe that the certainty of receiving a fine for running a red light helps deter the practice and save lives.
The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) advocates use of the red light cameras at intersections to help prevent accidents caused by red light runners. The IIHS has collected extensive amounts of data to support its views. But our Galveston car accident lawyers recognize that some safety experts maintain that their use of the data is both flawed and biased.
Yet the IIHS states the numbers of crashes, particularly crashes resulting in injury, have decreased dramatically where red light cameras and the certainty of fines are present. For instance, in Oxnard, California, which had red light cameras installed back in 1997, the IIHS says that the city has experienced a 29% decrease in the number of traffic accidents.
According to the IIHS, the decrease includes a startling 68% reduction in “front-to-side” accidents (impacts where one vehicle plows into the side of another at an intersection) resulting in injury. The IIHS points out that these dramatic results occurred even though only 11 of Oxnard’s 125 intersections come equipped with the red light cameras. To our Galveston car accident lawyers, the implication seems to be that the threat of the cameras and the fines serves as an extremely strong influence on modifying drivers’ red light running behaviors.
In another argument to support the strong impact of red light cameras in preventing injury accidents, the IIHS compares accident statistics in 14 cities. The IIHS study uses data from between 1992 to 1996, when these 14 cities did not have red light cameras, and from 2004 to 2008, when they did have the cameras. The IIHS points to a 35% decrease in the 14 cities in fatal red light running crashes during the latter period. By comparison, fatal crash rates fell 14% overall during that period.
IIHS indicates that the substantial difference between the two statistics should be associated with the positive influence of the red light cameras. The IIHS attributes a 24% decrease in fatal red light crashes to the cameras and 159 lives saved. The IIHS also says that 89% of drivers that are aware of red light cameras favor their use. (This is the IIHS data point that this writer personally finds most questionable. I have yet to meet anyone who really wants to be subject to the cameras. I’m not sufficiently convinced of the safety benefits to believe they outweigh the costs and inconveniences posed by the devices.)
Our Galveston car accident lawyers note that Texas is one of 24 states that currently allow the use of red light cameras. Whether or not the data really supports the IIHS viewpoint, there’s no denying that most of us will take more approaching and driving through intersections we know to be equipped with a red light camera.
Cities that use the cameras don’t provide any means for disputing a red light camera ticket. So if you end up on camera, you either have to pay the fine or risk a warrant catching up with you later. Red light cameras do influence driver behavior. But some experts say that this influence actually causes more wrecks as drivers suddenly take note of the cameras and come to abrupt halts from high speeds. Read about the opposing view on red light cameras in our Galveston car accident lawyers’ other article.
Our Houston DWI accident attorneys note that Connecticut has just become one of a growing number of states to step up penalties against drunken drivers. The state initially required installation of ignition interlock devices only after a 2nd drunken driving conviction. But now drunk drivers must install them, at their own expense, upon their 1st conviction.
15 states (including Connecticut) and part of California currently require the ignition interlock devices (IIDs) on the vehicles of first time drunken driving offenders. Our Houston DWI accident attorneys explain that IIDs work by requiring the driver to make a deep lung blow of air lasting several seconds into the device. If the device detects alcohol above a threshold of .025%, it triggers a report and the vehicle’s engine won’t ignite.
For those drivers tempted to cheat by getting a sober friend to blow into the device, some IIDs incorporate the use of cameras to verify identity. And all IIDs generate random alerts advising drivers to pull over and re-test. If the driver refuses to comply, another report is generated. The device also generates reports indicating lack of use of the device, which would tend to indicate that the offender is cheating by driving another vehicle not equipped with the device.
Agencies that monitor the IIDs should regularly review data reports from the devices to determine the level of the driver’s compliance. Non-complying drivers could receive additional punishments including extension of the time period that the IID must remain in use on their vehicle.
The CDC claims that the use of IIDs cuts down on drunk driving repeat offenses by an average of 67%. A 2009 NHTSA report maintains that IIDs reduce repeat offenses among both first time and repeat DWI offenders by between 50% and 90% so long as the IID remains in place on their vehicles. Another interesting number from MADD claims that drunk drivers usually drive drunk an average of more than 85 times before they are caught for their first DWI offense.
Our Houston DWI accident attorneys support the use of ignition interlock devices on the vehicles of convicted DWI offenders. But all the numbers indicate that even if an IID gets placed on the vehicle of every convicted drunken driver, there will still be scores of drunken drivers out there with no IIDs on their vehicles to prevent the vehicle from starting up and careening out onto the road after the drivers have had too much to drink.
For all of the high-profile campaigns the past few decades have seen against drunken driving and the very real reduction in some of the drunk driving accident statistics, drunken drivers who put others in danger of cash injuries and fatalities remain a real problem. If a drunken driver has injured you, contact our experienced Houston DWI accident attorneys for a free legal consultation. We could help you understand your legal options for making a successful financial recovery against the drunken driver who caused your harm. You can reach us toll free at 877-307-9500, or use our online contact features at your convenience.
Galveston crash injury lawyers mention that you might not know that President Obama has ordered the FAA, beginning in less than 90 days, to approve more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs, or “drones” as they’re more commonly regarded). These UAVs are intended for law enforcement and emergency use. But the legislation the President signed does not, in fact, limit the uses to which the drones might be put.
Which leaves the possibility that your inquisitive neighbor, questionable “ex,” background check firm, marketing research entity, hacker, or any other curious individual or entity could utilize domestic drones to track your behavior and location, and possibly use the drone in ways hazardous to your life and health. Our Galveston crash injury lawyers point out that, depending upon their design, the UAVs can carry weapons, and can use infrared, radar, and other sensors to peer through your walls and ceilings.’
Under the President’s order, the FAA has until September 30, 2015 to create drones less than 4.4 pounds in weight that can fly lower than 400 feet. To date, the FAA has restricted the use of domestic drones because of concerns that they might pose hazards to other aircraft and to people on the ground. But the President has effectively trumped the FAA and its concerns with little regard for your personal safety or privacy.
The FAA’s concerns seem well founded to our Galveston crash injury lawyers. Tests of the drones in Texas showed that the UAVs leave much to be desired. The tests in Texas showed the drones to be plagued with problems:
Now don’t get us wrong. Generally speaking, we’re all for an increased police presence and increased public safety just about everywhere. But we prefer human police who can make human judgment calls. People who know when to shoot as well as when not to shoot. Law enforcement should have a face, a conscience, and a heart, as well as a steady trigger finger.
Our Galveston crash injury lawyers are not convinced that an automated drone, a spy in the sky, can serve that function. Suppose your neighbor next door has a highly productive meth lab. Suppose authorities decide to target the lab through an automated drone. Suppose the drone fires and misses. Do you want to be “collateral damage?” Oops, just another technical glitch?
We understand the government’s desire to automate. Many industries have chosen to automate where it was feasible. Machines don’t get paychecks or benefits. They don’t call in sick. (They just have sudden catastrophic systems failure.)
We remain unconvinced that you can automate the police function. Robocop isn’t something we want to contemplate roving our neighborhoods and malls (or flying over them either). Automating the first response function seems to indicate a low disregard for the public safety.
Tried and true methods still seem the preferable means to address long-standing human problems. For example, if you’ve suffered injury in a local road accident, take a look at our Galveston crash injury lawyers’ book offering tried and true methods to ensure your successful accident injury claim. It’s available on our website for free to our readers. Just click and download. And don’t worry about what that drone overhead may think of your reading habits.
Our Houston injury attorneys recently discussed the NHTSA’s proposal to require backup cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2014. We discussed the NHTSA proposal in light of a local accident that involved a woman who unwittingly backed over and seriously injured a young toddler as she pulled out to head to work.
Our Houston injury attorneys pointed out that automakers were trying to convince the NHTSA to drop the requirement because it would cost the manufacturers too much money to comply with the backup camera rule. Well, maybe the NHTSA has decided that your children’s safety isn’t worth the price to automakers.
In a sudden change of direction, lawmakers have announced that they won’t be implementing the proposed rule as expected. The NHTSA had been expected to issue the backup camera on February 29th. But now the U.S. agency has put any new rule off until at least the end of 2012 “for further study and data analysis.”
Our Houston injury attorneys ask just how much more study and data analysis could be needed? And why? The NHTSA’s own data says that approximately 200 children die each year in backover accidents and around another 18,000 are injured. The costs of these injuries and fatalities runs into many billions of dollars annually.
The automakers maintain that implementing backup cameras in all vehicles will cost them $1.9 to $2.7 billion, a smaller sum. But evidently U.S. lawmakers would rather spare automakers the expense of the backup cameras than spare you and your insurers the cost of your children’s injuries or fatalities.
Children aren’t the only group vulnerable to unintended backover accidents in the absence of backup cameras. Children make up 44% of those killed each year in backover accidents; those over 70 years of age make up another 33%. So if you are elderly or have reduced mobility, you’re also particularly vulnerable to injury or death because of the large blind spots generated by reversing vehicles. Pickup trucks and SUVs have particularly extensive blind spot areas that can hide people behind the backing vehicles from drivers’ view.
But in the grand scheme of things, automakers’ profits and concerns seem to carry more weight with U.S. lawmakers than concerns for your safety and well being or concerns for the safety and well being of the children, elderly, or disabled members of your family and community. This is the position indicated by the NHTSA’s failure to issue the expected rule requiring backup cameras in all vehicles by 2014. This Houston injury attorney would feel better if he could claim to be shocked by this turn of events. Deeply troubled: yes. Outraged: yes. But shocked: no. Lawmaker priorities regarding backup cameras must lie elsewhere than with your child’s safety.
For now, you and your family still bear the costs associated with safety. If you or a family member receive costly injuries from a wreck, contact this concerned Houston injury attorney for a free legal consultation. I could help you learn how to recover the cost from the one responsible for injuring you.