Recently ABC World News ran a piece about a new collision-avoidance technology, a forward-facing “radar” device that detects when vehicles directly in your path are going slower than you or are stopped.
When either of these conditions is met, the vehicle warns the driver and allows the driver to brake or go around the obstruction. If the driver fails to take action, the car will attempt to stop itself.
From a risk-management standpoint, this could be huge. My previous experience showed that rear-end crashes are the leading cause of injury-producing collisions. They rarely cause a fatality and are almost never sensationalized in the media, but they are the most common and as a whole are very costly, especially if you add in delayed response, employee injury and potential litigation.
I always found the “reasons” for such crashes to be almost amusing:
- “Looked down to take a bite of my tortilla and...”
- “Trying to drink my soup and...”
- “The car in front of me must not have seen me following close and hit the brakes...”
Rarely did I see the driver accept personal responsibility for the collision:
- “I was not paying attention and rear-ended another vehicle...”
- “I was following too close and...”
Following distance and rear-end collisions constitute a recognized problem. Every driving program I have ever taken, professional or personal, includes some method to avoid this type of collision.
But the training does not always work.
The newscast stated that the equipment upgrade costs about $1,200 but the average collision costs around $2,000. They’re available on Ford, GM Toyota, Chrysler and 14 other manufacturers, and they claim to reduce rear-end collisions by as much as 14 percent. This could easily pay for itself many times over.
However, during the test run with the reporter, the system did NOT stop the vehicle prior to collision. The companion article went on to describe early reports suggesting that lane-drift technology may actually increase collisions.
This information highlights and illustrates an important point: No system is perfect.
It’s still important to pursue such technology, even though fallible. Drivers get distracted. This was true when I taught driver safety 25-30 years ago, before cell phones, texting, tablets, etc.
People are still people — they get tired, they get angry, they take medication. Any technology that helps keep us safe should be explored, tested and, when appropriate, brought to all markets, including EMS.
Often we seem to be the last markets to have access to these upgrades, launched for higher-end cars, not ambulance chassis.
We did not perform 12-lead EKGs in the field or have access to pulse oximetry or C-PAP 25 years ago. Patient care technology evolved. We need to devote as much energy to provider care technology.
