auto safety

queer-friendly-data-on-car-crash-deaths-removed-from-nhtsa-website

Queer-friendly data on car crash deaths removed from NHTSA website


Potential road hazard ahead

Trump targeting car crash data sparks concerns over datasets collected since 1975.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

In early February, a dataset tracking car crash deaths in the US curiously went missing from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website.

Unlike other Donald Trump-ordered changes to government websites in which entire studies were removed and later court-ordered to be restored, only the most recent data on car crash deaths from 2022 was deleted from download files on NHTSA’s website.

The odd removal sparked concerns that the Trump administration may be changing or possibly even ending the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)—a collection of police-reported data from every state that has tracked car crash fatalities since 1975. The Health department has said the data is used to help reduce deaths from not wearing a seatbelt or deaths involving a drunk driver.

NHTSA did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But the agency eventually provided a vague response to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an organization that advises lawmakers and bills itself as a “unique partnership of insurers, law enforcement, public health, and consumer experts working together to make America’s roads safer.”

“The file was taken down for some minor corrections and should be back up by the end of this week,” NHTSA told Advocates without any further explanation of what fixes were needed.

Ars spoke to several safety organizations and auto industry analysts who depend on FARS data to analyze trends, including efforts to flag the most dangerous cars in America.

A rumor began circulating that the 2022 data was yanked because NHTSA began allowing “other” sexes to be monitored in FARS data starting with that report. It was expected that NHTSA pulled the data down to comply with a Trump executive order “defending women” by banning government “efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex.”

To get to the bottom of the rumors, Ars consulted an archived version of the FARS downloads page, which showed that the 2022 dataset was available as recently as January 30. The uncensored data showed that unlike prior years, 22 car crash victims were documented using a category in 2022 for sex that had never been tracked previously, “Other (e.g., “X”, Non-Binary, Not Specified, etc.).”

NHTSA has not directly confirmed if the dataset is being changed to remove this data or if other “minor corrections” were needed. More will be revealed once the dataset comes back online, supposedly within the next few days.

Karl Brauer, an executive analyst for iSeeCars.com, which offers a car search engine and uses FARS data to help buyers steer clear of the “most dangerous” vehicles on US roads, told Ars that NHTSA’s public silence on the missing data means industry stakeholders don’t really know right now how FARS data might be changing.

“We can only speculate regarding NHTSA curtailing access to FARS data, but it’s disappointing given FARS’ value as a reference point for vehicle safety,” Brauer said. “Hopefully, this is a temporary situation that will be resolved shortly and not an indication that NHTSA no longer plans to compile this data. Consumers should be able to review all aspects of a vehicle’s safety, including how many fatalities it has been involved in.”

Trump targeting car crash data

Among the most dangerous cars on the road last year, iSeeCars flagged the Hyundai Venue, Chevrolet Corvette, Mitsubishi Mirage, Porsche 911, and Honda CR-V Hybrid as the “top five most dangerous cars.” Those cars had “fatal accident rates nearly five times higher than the average vehicle” from 2018 to 2022, their report said.

And “despite Tesla’s advanced driver-assist technology,” the Model Y and Model S both made the list, too, with Tesla maintaining “the highest fatal accident rate by brand.”

Back in December, when Trump was preparing to take office, a document seen by Reuters reportedly showed that his transition team was angling to “drop a car-crash reporting requirement opposed by Elon Musk’s Tesla.”

This car crash data, which is compiled due to a mandatory reporting requirement from carmakers, is different from FARS data, which comes from police reports. But a source told Reuters that Musk maintains that the mandatory reporting rule is “unfair” to Tesla because Musk “believes” Tesla reports “better data” than other car brands. That “makes it look like Tesla is responsible for an outsized number of crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems,” the source told Reuters.

Trump reportedly tasked his transition team with coming up with a 100-day strategy to kill off the reporting requirement. That move seemingly would make FARS data even more important to safety organizations and government officials that would otherwise lose data that helps track vehicle safety concerns, particularly with innovative automated-driving systems.

The University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute houses the Center for the Management of Information for Safe and Sustainable Transportation (CMISST), which also regularly analyzes car crash data. A CMISST spokesperson told Ars that NHTSA has also removed Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) data from 2022. Even temporary removals make it harder for outside researchers to get a clear picture of road safety, the spokesperson told Ars.

“These datasets are world-leading in their scale and completeness, with FARS a complete census of fatal crashes involving someone who died within 30 days as a result of a crash on public roads,” CMISST’s spokesperson said. “CRSS is in some ways even more world-leading because it is a well-designed complex probability survey of police-reported crashes across the US, which allows us to have nationally representative estimates of the incidence of such crashes, including many key characteristics of the circumstances, the vehicles, and the people involved.”

Joseph Young, director of media relations for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), told Ars that, like many others, his organization had “previously downloaded the dataset and continues to use it for analysis, so this removal doesn’t cause any immediate issues for our team.” But Young agreed that “it does complicate others’ ability to access the full dataset.”

Currently, the official FARS query tool still shows 2022 data, Young noted, but an Ars review confirmed that the tracking of “other” sexes is not available through that interface. So the only way to see changes once NHTSA uploads the new file will be to consult the archived dataset.

FARS saves lives, experts say

FARS data is released as soon as it’s available to try to prevent as many vehicle fatalities as possible. The version of the 2022 data that is missing from NHTSA’s site today is not the final draft, which is expected to be published in the spring. Around the same time, the first draft of the 2023 data should be available, CMISST’s spokesperson told Ars, as long as the Trump administration doesn’t de-prioritize sharing the data. Young told Ars that IIHS’ “bigger concern” than the missing 2022 data is whether there will be delays in posting new data.

“The latest FARS data is used extensively for research purposes and also for informing the public and decision makers about important trends in traffic safety, so it’s important that it be available as soon as possible,” Young told Ars.

Peter Kurdock, general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, told Ars that the key government datasets that his organization relies on to monitor highway safety do not currently appear to be at risk. But those reports are frequently updated, and any potential delays could make it harder to answer granular data-driven questions like “What type of pedestrians are being hit?” or “What time of day are they being hit?”

“All that stuff’s very important to the policy we develop, and we have to answer questions from policymakers as well,” Kurdock told Ars.

Advocates’ senior research director, Shaun Kildare, added that carmakers shouldn’t want this dataset to be messed with any more than outside safety researchers, because otherwise they would have to rely on spotty customer reports to monitor issues with their vehicles.

“In the past 50 years, [there were] 860,000 lives saved [and] nearly 50 million people that avoided injury,” Kildare said, citing NHTSA data. “I think the overall benefits [of collecting FARS and other crash data to set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] were somewhere in the $17 trillion range in terms of benefits and cost savings to the US,” he added.

A CMISST spokesperson told Ars that there remains a critical need to closely track car crash fatalities, which, despite safety stakeholders’ best efforts, reportedly continue to rise in the US.

“Given that fatalities have been going in the wrong direction over the last approximately 15 years, these data are critical to knowing where we are at with fatal (and non-fatal) crashes and which groups of crashes (e.g., pedestrians at night) are particularly on the rise,” CMISST’s spokesperson said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Queer-friendly data on car crash deaths removed from NHTSA website Read More »

it’s-no-accident:-these-automotive-safety-features-flopped

It’s no accident: These automotive safety features flopped

safety first —

Over the years, inventors have had some weird ideas about how to make cars safer.

a toy car crashing into another toy car

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Turn signals have been a vehicle safety staple since they first appeared on Buicks in 1939. Of course, many drivers don’t use them, perhaps believing that other motorists can telepathically divine others’ intentions.

More people might use turn signals if they knew that drivers’ failure to do so leads to more than 2 million accidents annually, according to a study conducted by the Society of Automotive Engineers. That’s 2 percent of all crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And not using turn signals increases the likelihood of an accident by 40 percent, according to the University of Michigan Research Institute.

Human nature could be to blame—death and injury will never happen to us, only others.

You wish.

So, is it any wonder that during the first six decades of automobile production, there were few safety features? The world into which the automobile was born was one in which horses powered most transportation, but that didn’t mean getting around was safe. Say a horse got spooked. If the animal was pulling a carriage, its actions could cause the carriage to barrel away or even overturn, injuring or killing its occupants. Or the horse could cause death directly. In fact, a surprising number of kings met their end over the centuries by a horse’s swift kick. And rail travel proved even deadlier. Studies comparing modern traffic accidents with those of the early 20th century reveal that death from travel is 90 percent less likely today than it was in 1925.

Yet America’s passive acceptance of death from vehicle travel in the late 19th and early 20th century explains why auto safety was sporadically addressed, if at all. Sure, there were attempts at offering basic safety in early automobiles, like windshield wipers and improved lighting. And some safety features endured, such as Ford’s introduction of safety glass as standard equipment in 1927 or GM’s turn signals. But while other car safety features appeared from time to time, many of them just didn’t pan out.

Dead ends on the road to safer cars

Among the earliest attempts at providing safety was the O’Leary Fender, invented by John O’Leary of Cohoes, New York, in 1906. “It is made of bands of iron of such shape and design that falling into it is declared to be like the embrace of a summer girl on a moonlit night on the shore,” wrote The Buffalo News in 1919, with more than a little poetic license.

Advertisement for Pennsylvania Vacuum Cup Tires by the Pennsylvania Rubber Company in Jeannette, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Auto Tube is pictured, 1919.

Enlarge / Advertisement for Pennsylvania Vacuum Cup Tires by the Pennsylvania Rubber Company in Jeannette, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Auto Tube is pictured, 1919.

Jay Paull/Getty Images

According to the account, O’Leary was so confident of the fender’s ability to save lives that he used his own child to prove its safety. “The babe was gathered up on the folds of the fender as tenderly as it had ever been in the arms of its mother,” the newspaper reported, “and was not only uninjured but seemed to enjoy the experience.”

There’s no word on what Mrs. O’Leary thought of using the couple’s child as a crash test dummy. But the invention seemed worthy enough that an unnamed car manufacturer battled O’Leary in court over it and lost. Ultimately, his victory proved futile, as the feature was not adopted.

Others also tried to bring some measure of safety to automobiles, chief among them the Pennsylvania Rubber Company of Jeanette, Pennsylvania. The company’s idea: make a tire tread of small suction cups to improve traction. Called the Pennsylvania Vacuum Cup tire, the product proved to be popular for a while, with reports of sales outnumbering conventional tires 10 to 1, according to the Salt Lake Tribune in 1919. While Pennsylvania wasn’t the only rubber company to offer vacuum cup tires, the concept had its day before fading, although the idea does resurface from time to time.

Nevertheless, safety remained unaddressed, even as the number of deaths was rising substantially.

“Last year more than 22,000 persons were killed in or by automobiles, and something like three quarters of a million injured,” wrote The New Republic in 1926. “The number of dead is almost half as large as the list of fatalities during the nineteen months of America’s participation in the Great War.”

“The 1925 total is 10 percent larger than that for 1924,” the publication added.

The chief causes cited were the same as they are today—namely, speeding, violating the rules of the road, inattention, inexperience, and confusion. But at least one automaker—Stutz—was trying to put safety first.

It’s no accident: These automotive safety features flopped Read More »