Injuryboard Commentary - Motor Vehicle Accidents

Surprising Facts about Spinal Cord Injuries

Jim Lewis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:10:00 GMT

According to www.sci-info-pages.com, a website of caregivers centred on spinal cord injuries, about 250,000 Americans have a spinal cord injury. A little over half, or 52% of spinal cord injured are paraplegic; an impairment in motor and sensory function of the lower extremities. 47% of the injured are quadriplegic; which is paralysis caused by illness or injury which results in partial or total loss of use of all the limbs and torso.

Vehicular accidents make up for 37% of the cause of spinal cord injury (SCI), followed by violent assault at 28%, falls are at 21%, and sports-related injuries amount to 6% of total spinal injuries. The majority of spinal cord injuries typically occur between the ages of 16-30 when an individual is usually the most physically active. This spinal trauma results in morbidity and also includes respiratory deficiency, bladder and bowel dysfunction and loss of motor and sensory functions. With the advent of these secondary complications from the initial spinal injury requires the patient to undergo physical and medical care for a longer period time.

Since motor vehicle accidents are the primary cause of spinal cord injury, the CDC has come up with safety measures to help prevent the occurrence of SCI. Also, it should be noted that you should never drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol for the obvious impairment issues related to such activity.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

A Red Light Means Stop

Bret Hanna — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:01:58 GMT

Utah traffic engineers report that the number of motor vehicle accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic signals has almost doubled since 2007. That is more than 2,000 accidents caused by those who fail to obey red lights, stop signs or yield signs. Oddly, however, some believe that deterrents like red light cameras not only fail to reduce intersection accidents, they may increase them.

The National Motorists Association has issued a report declaring just that. They rely on 5 studies to support their claims:

1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995

This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.

Quotes from the study:

“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”

“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”

Download The Full Study

2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007

The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.

Quotes from the study:

“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”

“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”

“The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.”

“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”

Download The Full Study

3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001

This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.

Quoted from the study:

“And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?

In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.

Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.

But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.

Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.

A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.

In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”

Download The Full Study

4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004

A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.

Quoted from the study:

“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:

The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”

Download The Full Study

5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003

This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).

In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.

Quoted from the study:

“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:

* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.

The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”

Download The Full Study

Regardless of whether red light cameras, or any other monitoring methods, including law enforcement presence, decrease or increase accidents caused by failure to observe traffic control devices, every driver must pay attention and stop at all mandated times. That is the only way the number of these accidents will really decrease.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

Managed Competition and Your Personal Injury Coverage

Bruce Bierhans — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:15:06 GMT

With Managed Competition now here in Mass; and liability carrier commercials flooding the airwaves, I thought a little motor vehicle insurance primer was in order.

In this economy, I find that many injured clients have inadequate liability coverage to compensate them for their injuries. In Mass. your motor vehicle coverage is intended to protect your hard earned assets if you or a family member injures another person, and to compensate you if you are injured by a driver who has inadequate or minimal coverage.

Coverage designed to protect you and your family as a result of injuries caused to another is called "bodily injury (BI) to others", or "optional bodily injury to others". State law requires you to carry minimum coverage of $20,000/$40,000, but you should purchase additional coverage through the optional component of the policy of at least $100,000/$300,000 ($50,000/$100,000 and $250,000/$500,000 are also available). Also, you should obtain coverage for "bodily injury caused by an underinsured/uninsured auto (UM)" or optional coverage of the same name. A vehicle is underinsured if the value of your claim exceeds the amount of bodily injury coverage carried by the at-fault driver. For example, if there is $20,000 available per injured person, and your claim is worth $100,000, the at fault vehicle is underinsured by $80,000. This is where carrying adequate uninsured/underinsured coverage becomes crucial.

To be adequately protected in all events, everyone should carry BI coverage to others, as well as UM coverage for themselves of at least $100,000/$300,000. If you or a household member seriously injure another person and only possess minimum coverage, your personal assets could be attached to satisfy a judgment that exceeds policy limits. Conversely, if you are injured and possess minimum UM coverage, your recovery will be limited to the actual amount of coverage held, even if the value of the claim exceeds that coverage. In the above $100,000 example, you would have been able to recover that $80,000 above the $20,000 from your own UM coverage. Without it, you would be limited to a recovery of $20,000 only.

The additional cost involved in purchasing this extra coverage is less than many people believe. Also, I routinely find that many people have never had a discussion with their insurance agents about these coverage issues. "My agent never told me" is a common refrain. Talk to your agent or attorney about these issues before you place your coverage. After the accident, it's too late!

Protect yourself and drive safely.

Bruce Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Managed Competition and Your Liability Coverage

Bruce Bierhans — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:08:00 GMT

With Managed Competition now here in Mass; and liability carrier commercials flooding the airwaves, I thought a little motor vehicle insurance primer was in order.

To be adequately protected in all events, everyone should carry BI coverage to others, as well as UM coverage for themselves of at least $100,000/$300,000. If you or a household member seriously injure another person and only possess minimum coverage, your personal assets could be attached to satisfy a judgment that exceeds policy limits. Conversely, if you are injured and possess minimum UM coverage, your recovery will be limited to the actual amount of coverage held, even if the value of the claim exceeds that coverage. In the above $100,ooo example, you would have been able to recover that $80,000 above the $20,000 from your own UM coverage. Without it, you would be limited to a recovery of $20,000 only.

Protect yourself and drive safely.

Bruce Bierhans

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Will the Texas Legislature Really Approve Lane Splitting?

Brooks Schuelke — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:35:06 GMT

Before reading this blog post, watch a portion of the video below.

Did you watch it? If you did, thanks for listening. If you haven't, really go back and watch a few seconds.

The video is a good example of lane splitting, motorcycles driving between lanes of traffic. Doesn't seem very smart or safe to me, but yesterday the Texas Senate approved Senate Bill 506, which would make some lane splitting legal in Texas.

Your question is problem the same as mine? Why do we need that? Well, supporters of the bill suggest that allowing lane splitting will help improve traffic. As the motorcycles move up, it vacates spots in traffic for cars and trucks. Now I try and give people the benefit of the doubt, but that sounds ridiculous to me. I'm not sure what kind of traffic the supporters sit in, but when I'm in traffic, it's because there are too many cars and trucks, not because there are too many motorcycles. Now maybe if they voted to allow lane splitting for semis it would improve traffic, but motorcycles just aren't much of a problem.

Instead, this seems stupidly dangerous for all involved. I don't know about you, but I have a hard enough time changing lanes during rush hour traffic --- trying to find an opening or trying to make eye contact with the driver next to me so they'll let me in --- I don't need the extra difficulty of watching out for some idiot speeding up behind me on a motorcycle. And then imagine all the cars that move close together to try and cut off the motorcyclists. I just don't see how this is going to go well.

If you're interested in more, Fox 7 had a nice story last night, and I suggest you watch it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brooks Schuelke

Latest Pedestrian v. Auto Accident Statistics

Ed Normand — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:25:00 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued the latest statistics on accidents involving pedestrians and motor vehicles in the United States. The report details the number of pedestrian traffic related fatalities and injuries. The report shows that a pedestrian dies from a motor vehicle related collision once, on average, every 113 minutes and a pedestrian is injured in a traffic incident about every 8 minutes.

The totals reveal that in the year 2007 4,654 pedestrians died in the United States and 70,000 were injured in traffic accidents in the United States. The statistics also provide information about the location and conditions at the time of the traffic accidents. By far the majority (73%) of the deaths happened in urban areas and outside of crosswalks away from intersections (77%). Most happened in good weather (90%), and most were at night (67%). The most alarming (but not surprising statistic) was that alcohol was found in a driver or the pedestrian Alcohol involvement in 49 percent of the fatal pedestrian traffic accidents. More children and elderly are involved in traffic crashes involving pedestrians than other victims.

Analysis of the statistics tells us to be careful crossing outside of an intersection and that drunk driving kills. Of course, we already knew that.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

High Speed Car Crashes Often Result in Diffuse Axonal Injury ("DAI")

Doug Landau — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:00:00 GMT

Diffuse axonal injury (DAI injury) is widespread injury to axons, a part of the nerve cells in the brain.

Nerve impulses leave nerve cells through a part of the nerve cell called the axon. In diffuse axonal injury, axons throughout the brain are damaged. That is because the brain moves inside the skull. If the brain moves, twists or torques too much, the nerve axons can stretch and tear. The usual causes include falls and motor vehicle crashes. As a result of diffuse axonal injury, brain cells may die, causing brain swelling, increasing pressure within the skull. Increasing pressure may compound the injury by decreasing blood supply to the brain. Sometimes the person has symptoms of damage to a specific area of the brain. Increased pressure within the skull may cause coma. Computed tomography (CT) scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is usually done to detect diffuse axonal injury. Diffuse axonal injury is treated with the general measures used to treat all types of head injuries. Surgery is not helpful.

Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is a frequent result of traumatic deceleration injuries and a frequent cause of persistent vegetative state in patients. DAI is the most significant cause of morbidity in patients with traumatic brain injuries, which most commonly result from high-speed motor vehicle accidents.

DAI is a significant medical problem because of the high level of debilitation that is suffered by the patient, the stress that must be endured by the patient's family when the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, and the staggering medical cost of sustaining the patient in this state.

The true extent of axonal injury typically is worse than that visualized using current imaging techniques. In other words, many cases of DAI will result in Microscopic tears, so you will not see them with the medical tests currently available. Autopsy and histopathic studies have shown that the extent of DAI always exceed that visualized macroscopically, and DAI are usually Non-Hemorrhagic, so there is no bleeding, so bleeding tests will show zilch. Neuropsychological testing can sometimes show the damage from "closed head injury" or traumatic brain injury ("TBI"). The complexity of these types of injuries and their difficulty in being "seen" or diagnosed require that an experienced lawyer be retained at the earliest possible by brain injury victims and their families.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Cell Phones, Texting and Car Accidents

Bruce Bierhans — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:07:34 GMT

OK. Be honest. How many times in recent memory have you been driving down the highway and seen someone (most frequently a teen age girl) with two hands on the steering wheel with two thumbs texting away!!! Not only have I seen this with alarming regularity in my commutes between my Cape and off Cape offices, but I am also seeing accident victims in the office repeating the same refrain..."I saw them on the cell phone when they hit me."

I am not customarily a fan of government regulating behavior. But ...texting in cars, and use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle are, without question, dangerous activities. If individuals do not, voluntarily, conform to safer behavior, the government will do it for us and these activities will become criminal.

As this issue develops, in the event you are injured and you suspect that a cellphone played a role, make sure you inform your attorney. Cellphone records can be used as evidence to establish fault on the part of an offending operator. In the meantime...stay off the phone while driving!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Cape Cod Motor Vehicle Accidents Continue

Bruce Bierhans — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:17:53 GMT

Unfortunately, the annual Labor Day tourist exodus did not bring a halt to Cape Cod motor vehicle accidents.

The Cape Cod Times reported today that a three vehicle accident occurred yesterday afternoon in Eastham on Rte.6. According to reports, one vehicle failed to stay in marked lanes, resulting in the three vehicle collision. Of the five injured, two were from Warrensburg, NY and three were local residents.

As always; even after Labor Day, caution and diligent observation for the "other guy" on Cape roads is essential.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Bierhans

Walk Much? Chicago’s Most Dangerous Intersections for Pedestrians Revealed

Nick Avgerinos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:33:00 GMT

If you live and/or work in the city, chances are you’re doing a lot of walking. And with the price of gas nowadays, you’re probably doing extra walking. If so, you can probably relate to CBS’s analogy that crossing the street in Chicago is like playing the old videogame “Frogger.” In short, walk at your own risk.

The statistics put this real danger in perspective. On average, there are approximately 1000 serious pedestrian accidents each year in Chicago, resulting in over 900 serious injuries and 71 fatalities. Almost one-third of those accidents are hit-and-runs. And while pedestrians do contribute to some of the accidents, efforts at educating the public are focused on drivers since they are the ones operating heavy machinery.

As a recent AP article noted, part of the problem is our culture of entitlement. As drivers, we tend to feel like we own the roads. And with bumper-to-bumper traffic, it always feels like it should be our turn. As a result, motorists on a mission have a ‘get out of my way’ mentality that can prove dangerous to pedestrians just trying to get to the other side.

With the heavy pedestrian presence on Chicago’s streets, the city of the big shoulders needs to make some room for walkers. That’s why the city of Chicago is working on engineering, education, and enforcement to make our streets safer for pedestrians. To demonstrate the severity of the problem, in June, an undercover officer pretended to be a pedestrian using the crosswalk. In less than two hours, police issued warnings to 101 drivers who failed to yield.

Clearly, as drivers, we need to pay more attention to those on foot. But, as pedestrians, we also need to pay better attention to the motor vehicles around us. Most recently, many have expressed concern over our preoccupation with technological devices; keeping your eyes glued to your Blackberry, reading a new email, could be deadly if you’re simultaneously trying to cross the street. The same goes for zoning out with your earbuds in, listening to your iPod.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, there are also more mundane measures you can take to cut your risk, such as dressing such that you can be seen. Bright colors are better. Many operate under the false assumption that if you can see a car’s headlights, it can see you, too. Wrong! The Times suggests reflective colors for nighttime walking. Then again, if you stay focused on your surroundings and ignore the temptation to get lost in your gadgets, you should be fine regardless of attire. It’s all about keeping safety as your focus.

Here are the top 10 most dangerous intersections, ranked based upon total accident statistics from 2003 and 2005:

1. King Drive and 79th.....13

2. Ashland and 79th.....11

3. California and North.....10

4. Cicero and Madison.....9

5. Pulaski and Irving Park.....8

6. Kedzie and North.....8

7. Halsted and 95th.....8

8. Michigan and Monroe.....8

9. Clark and Washington.....7

10. Dearborn and Randolph.....7

Your schedule likely doesn’t allow you to avoid these intersections entirely, nor would that address the problem. CDOT is studying the most dangerous spots and brainstorming ways to improve their safety with better signs, pavement markings and signal timing. Regardless of what measures the city takes, however, there is plenty we can do, as both pedestrians and motorists, to improve the situation. So, before putting your foot on the gas or in front of the other (whichever the case may be), help keep our streets safe by looking both ways before you cross the street.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos