How can the American public be expected to know what’s safest for themselves and their children when supposedly trustworthy sources so often publish incorrect and unsafe “advice” about safe driving techniques, or — as in this case — post highly inappropriate photographs or illustrations showing dangerous scenarios as though they are correct and acceptable?
The photograph below first came to our attention when it was posted — outrageously — by no less an organization than the California DMV, so our first questions to them are: Who is responsible for this? Do they know nothing about safe driving and child safety at all?
The dangers shown here are that (a) the girl in the center of the three unavoidably has her seatbelt to high and effectively across her neck. In the event of a collision, this alone could kill her. The girl on the left also has her belt too high but not as badly as the first one. (b) The girl on the right has her belt across her upper arm, below the shoulder (see the Irish Examiner article, linked below, for a better view of this) and there is no way this would restrain her correctly in a collision where, at the very least it might be expected to cause serious arm or shoulder injuries.
The photograph is, however, at least two years old. We now know that a version of it was published by the Irish Examiner (newspaper) on July 04, 2015, in the ironically titled “How to keep kids well when travelling by car,” which was about car sickness but was apparently oblivious to child seatbelt safety
The fact that these three sources all used different versions of one image might suggest that they originated from a picture library, in which case we would suggest that while such libraries are in business purely to sell images, they DO have a responsibility not to trade in misleadingly dangerous pictures!
The businesses and individuals who publish or promote bad driving advice that they themselves have received from bodies that should be trustworthy on this crucial subject can hardly be blamed for regurgitating it. But the state governments that so typically publish very poor or even dangerous advice in their state drivers manuals truly should know better …. If only!
In this instance, it is a huge insurance corporation, State Farm, that has published an article under the title of Time to Break These 5 Bad Driving Habits. In it, two of the bits of advice (‘Rolling through stop signs’, and ‘Slowing down to look at crashes or construction’) are reasonable and adequately accurate. Two more (‘Running yellow or red lights’, and ‘Disregarding the speed limit’) are poor and appear to have been written by someone who truly does not know enough about the subject of safe driving. And — sadly — the fifth topic (‘Failing to signal’) is seriously flawed, as are the aforementioned state drivers manuals from which it is derived.
The advice to “signal for at least 100 feet” is unreliable in more ways than one, as follows:
a) At what speed does this “100 feet” guidance apply? Clearly, 100 feet in a 30mph limit is a much lengthier proposition than 100 feet at 70mph, and for this reason alone it cannot be correct;
b) Just how far is 100 feet? This is a scenario I have demonstrated dozens of times on advanced and defensive driver training courses across the USA. Basically, if — one-by-one — you take five individuals, on foot, to a section of road with which they are not conversant and ask them to name and describe a point that is 100 feet away, on that roadside, you are likely to get as many different answers as the number of people involved, and the distances they actually select can commonly be different by a factor of up to four! This appears to be particularly pronounced in mixed groups of males and females. So what use is an arbitrary distance — and 100 feet is arbitrary in everything except it being a nice, round number — if people typically cannot judge distances accurately?
c) What potential ‘confusions’ exist within that arbitrary 100 feet? Telling a person to signal for 100 feet is downright stupid if there is anything in that section of road to which the signal might alternatively apply (such as an intersection, driveway or business entrance before the one into which a turn is planned). Drivers need to be taught to consider all possibilities in this context and to signal at the most appropriate time… It’s not difficult!)
d) This ‘signal for 100 feet’ advice is given in some state drivers manuals in relation to lane changes on divided highways, and this is where we really do get to see the ignorance of whoever dreamt up this nonsense. At 70mph — a common highway speed, even where the limit is somewhat lower — a vehicle is covering the ground at 103 feet-per-second, so perhaps the original writer of the advice would like to explain how signaling for less than a second can even remotely be acceptable or in any way worthwhile. Most drivers know how we all typically feel if someone gives a single flash of the turn signal before pulling across and ‘cutting us up’.
In 2007, in Detroit, I presented a research paper at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, under the title of ‘State Drivers Manuals Can Kill Your Kids!‘ to specifically cover this topic of stunningly bad advice being promoted to new young drivers in state drivers manuals, clearly written by people who have no in-depth knowledge whatsoever of best-practice safe driving techniques.
Footnote: Papers which the SAE publishes are subsequently put on sale by them (with the relatively modest, $27 fee going entirely to them, not the authors) and this paper is therefore available via the above link. Whilst this final comment is immodest, for which I apologize, I believe it is relevant that the paper was also voted, by the audience, into the top five percent of all of the >700 papers presented at the event and as a result was awarded an SAE ‘Excellence in Presentation’ award.
Background: Traffic circles — which are not the same thing as roundabouts — were first used in Roman times, for chariots. ‘Modern roundabouts’ (the correct technical name) were first invented and put to use in Britain in the mid-1960s. The USA stuck with traffic circles and in some states ‘rotaries’ (also different) until early in this new, 21st Century and even now some states are still in this hiatus.
Why build roundabouts at all? The reasons are overwhelming. Using roundabouts improves traffic flow on busy roads or at previously-complex intersections, and — even more importantly — they reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious-injury crashes by well over ninety percent because they prevent T-bone/right-angle collisions, which in turn are extremely dangerous to vehicle occupants.
Situation: Many of America’s new ‘modern roundabouts’ — and I have encountered a lot in the many states in which I have instructed defensive- and advanced driving — are usually well-designed, except for three extremely important factors.
What are the problems that concern us?
The first is the fact that most roundabouts, to this day, in the USA do not have what one might call ‘map’ or ‘layout’ signs on each approach, showing drivers well in advance the exit they will need from the roundabout, to reach their destination. It is both arrogant and dangerous to assume that the drivers in any location are *all* local and all know which way to go at any intersection. And given that many drivers are still very uncomfortable on roundabouts — at least in part because of our third concern, below — anything that risks a driver swerving late to the right to take the exit they need, or swerving left, equally late, to stay on the roundabout when they were preparing to exit from it, is clearly dangerous and can cause collisions. Whether or not a collision results, such incidents serve to reinforce people’s fear of roundabouts and are therefore doubly damaging.
Our second concern follows from the first, in that the various lanes on American roundabouts do not always follow a set regime regarding which lane one should take for going left (properly described as being “more than half way around the roundabout”), going straight ahead, or turning right. In the absence of the above-mentioned map/layout signs, drivers only discover at the very last moment, just a few yards before reaching the actual roundabout, which lane they need to be in, and when this happens, yet more frantic and potentially dangerous swerves take place, but this time as lane changes, rather than “exit or stay”. Indeed, at roundabouts with more than four entry/exit roads — and quite rightly there are plenty like this — or at roundabouts where the entries and exits do not form a geometrically symmetrical crossroads, such last-minute lane allocations can be a real challenge.
Our third concern is that we know of no states that are advising people to use turn signals before entering roundabouts, during their journey through a roundabout (both ‘as applicable’) and always when leaving the roundabout. This is part of a systemic failure throughout the USA to educate drivers accurately how to drive around roundabouts correctly, and this failure has left a significant proportion of American drivers disliking or afraid of roundabouts — an immensely undesirable scenario.
All ADoNA training courses include full best-practice,theoretical training on how to correctly use roundabouts for maximum safety, and as long as there are any roundabouts near the training location you select, there will be full practical training as well. Courses
Improving the Overall Situation
Around 2006-07, my own concern about what can only be classed as flaws in the correct design and use of roundabouts in America triggered me to start communicating with officialdom at national, state and local levels about the situation, but not for the first time, we were met with what can only be described as a stone wall— a total unwillingness to even acknowledge, let alone reply to, our communications on this important matter.
In exasperation, we have to ask what is this failure to employ the best-practices developed by other countries that have been using modern roundabouts for more than 60 years? Do the administrators concerned bizarrely believe that proven and refined safety techniques are of no importance here in America so they’re just going to do it their own way? I’m sorry, but either way this is grossly unacceptable and certainly gives the impression of arrogance — a case of “re-inventing the wheel but very badly.”
Use ‘map’/’layout’ signs on every approach to all except the most-localized of roundabouts, so that visiting or inexperienced drivers are not left floundering as to which lane to use on the approach to the roundabout or not knowing which exit they will need to take from the roundabout until they actually reach it.
Develop a single (i.e. national!) policy for which lanes drivers should use at any roundabout in the USA — based on the geometry of any particular roundabout — “except where signs show otherwise.” Such an over-arching rule would allow all American drivers the chance to understand the benefits and use of roundabouts, and should be in every state’s drivers’ manual, with exactly the same wording so that there can be no drift away from its exact meaning.
Teach drivers when and where to signal, on the approach, the transit through and the exit from any and every roundabout. It is a remarkably easy rule to learn. Failure to teach drivers this is to treat them like idiots, and if you treat drivers like idiots, they will all drive like idiots!
Teach drivers that when approaching the yield line at the entrance to any roundabout, that they should be: “Prepared and able to stop but ready to keep going, if it is legal and safe to do so.”
It is a sad but inescapable and relevant fact that the USA is effectively the worst-performing developed nation in the world when it comes to road safety and reducing an excessively high number of road deaths each year. With a death-rate more than four-times worse than the leading nations of Sweden and the UK, America has a very long way to go to improve its highway safety to even just an acceptable level.