In 1976, Howard Anderson was the Safety Administrator at the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). His presentation that year to the National Highway Safety
Advisory Committee resulted in publication of a December 1976 paper entitled
"Dispelling a Myth: A Viewpoint on Highway Safety." Almost twenty years later, Stanley
Polanis quoted one of Howard Anderson's resounding endorsements for engineering
solutions to highway safety problems (see "Addressing Human Factors and Injury
Accidents Through the Safety Management System" in this issue of the TranSafety
Reporter). A further review of Anderson's comments provides valuable insight into
issues faced today by those trying to reduce highway injuries and fatalities.
Anderson prefaced his arguments in support of engineering solutions to highway
safety problems with statistics documenting the success of such programs. When
California completed 1,497 highway safety improvement projects between 1968 and
1973, follow- up studies showed the changes prevented approximately 5,000 crashes,
1,900 injuries and 210 fatalities each year. In addition, money saved by this reduction in
crashes returned $5 to the taxpayer for each $1 spent. California's CURE program
(Clean Up the Roadside Environment) effectively cleared hazards from the state's
interstate system and resulted in an 18 percent fatality reduction--saving about 1,000
lives in eight years.
The United States Interstate System incorporated many engineering safety design
improvements, and Anderson called it "probably the most outstanding example of the
impact of good roadway design on highway safety." Boasting about half the fatality rate
of other U.S. highways, interstates saved lives through incorporating such design
principles as concrete median barriers and breakaway light poles.
Citing a "lack of funds, a vast highway system, and resistance from the highway
profession itself" as factors slowing progress toward improved safety, Anderson
emphasized the need to debunk the myth that driver error is responsible for most
highway crashes. He called this "nut behind the wheel myth . . . only a half truth."
Statistics assigning fault to drivers for 80 to 90 percent of highway crashes originate with
police crash reports. Anderson pointed out that police personnel who write these reports
are law enforcement officers, and the responsibility of a law enforcement officer is to find
violations of the law. In the vast majority of cases, an officer looking for a violation can
find one. Calling that officer "more of a fault finder than a fact finder," Anderson urged
highway engineers to look beyond the "failure-to-yield-right-of-way" conclusion that
assigns fault to the driver and asked engineers to consider also the blind intersection that
contributed to a right-angle collision.
Anderson's counter to the myth of driver error continued:
-
-
[H]uman error . . . is not the only factor. As an example, would you consider an
accident caused by a driver stopping suddenly because of a confusing direction
sign driver error only? Is that head-on collision on a narrow bridge driver error
only? Is that pedestrian accident in a residential area without sidewalks driver
error only? Are those 12 right-angle collisions at an unsignalized intersection
driver error only? Of course not . . . In fact, the environment may lead the driver
into error or prevent him from making the right decision.
For highway engineers, the problem with believing the driver-error myth is that the
myth becomes an excuse for inaction. Anderson emphasized:
-
-
The real danger of the 80-90 percent myth is that it leads to the false assumption
that we can shrug off our safety responsibility. . . . Our reasoning is that we can
only impact a small percentage of accidents because most accidents are caused
by the driver and this small percentage is not worth our attention. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The environment has a highly significant impact on
safety payoff. . . . In fact, environmental safety improvements have shown more
substantial results than the results of both vehicle and driver programs combined.
Drivers make mistakes; Howard Anderson did not deny that fact. Because they
do, however, he deemed engineering improvements all the more effective. He wrote,
"Highway safety improvements have a double payoff--better engineered roads mean less
driver error and a more forgiving environment when an error is made." Expressing his
strong faith in engineering solutions to highway safety problems, Anderson wrote in 1976
the words that Stanley Polanis quoted in 1995. Howard Anderson concluded, "[T]he
contribution of the engineer should be so effective that there will be very little left for the
other safety programs to accomplish."