Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Transportation News

25% of Car Accidents Linked to Gadget Use 317

Posted by samzenpus
from the turn-your-movie-off dept.
BogenDorpher writes "In a recent study by the Governors Highway Safety Association (PDF), driving distractions such as cell phones and other electronic devices cause as much as 25% of all US car accidents. It is common knowledge that driving while distracted is not a safe thing to do, but now we have some scientific data that goes in-depth on the topic. From the article: '"Despite all that has been written about driver distraction, there is still a lot that we do not know. Much of the research is incomplete or contradictory. Clearly, more studies need to be done addressing both the scope of the problem and how to effectively address it," said GHSA Executive Director Barbara Harsha.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

25% of Car Accidents Linked to Gadget Use

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:44AM (#36719620)

    No, you're NOT special.

    • I got into all my car accidents when I was young and foolish, well before I had a cellphone.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        Ditto.

        Early 90s - I was eating McDonald's french fries and I was looking at the container instead of the road. I didn't see the guy in front of me suddenly stop. Bang.

        It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
        Even for a single millisecond.

        • by jhoegl (638955)
          But what if you dont like the song on the radio, or the air is to hot/cold inside?
        • It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
          Even for a single millisecond.

          It should, perhaps, be noted that in one millisecond, your automobile will travel about 1.3 INCHES (assuming you're driving at 75 mph) (that's 33.5 mm and 121 km/hr for you metric types).

          A traffic accident that comes within 1.3 inches of being a non-accident won't even ding the paint of your car, much less kill anyone.

          Exaggeration for effect is all well and good, but sometimes it's so over the top that it has the opposite of the

        • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday July 11, 2011 @10:26AM (#36720872)

          It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
          Even for a single millisecond.

          Yes, we should ban the dashboard from cars. All those indicator lights and gauges are distracting. There's no reason why anyone needs to know empirically how fast they're driving.

          Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead. Traffic changes fast, faster than you could believe. Don't turn your head, don't look away, and don't blink! Good luck.

      • by Moryath (553296)

        Which is one of the jokes of this kind of "study": failure to identify and properly control for intervening factors.

        Younger people (well that and illegal aliens) are most likely to drive drunk.
        Younger people are more likely to adopt new tech (cellphone texting, cell email, etc).
        Younger people are more likely to be Doing Other Things while driving.

        Now, this isn't a 100% certainty. Certainly there are the soccer mom bitches who put on their mascara while driving, and there are the subhuman PHB MBA types who a

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          I have seen people drive and play a trumpet.. when driving 696 in Detroit, you see all kinds of crazy crap.. Seeing someone read a book and drive was so commonplace it was scary.

        • by gfxguy (98788) on Monday July 11, 2011 @09:10AM (#36719944)

          I don't get it... are you saying cellphone use should be allowed while driving because younger drivers will be distracted anyway?

          Obviously you can't eliminate all distractions, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier to be distracted.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by TheCarp (96830)

            Make it easier?

            What? Huh? You think having a law against something makes it harder to do? The question is not "should we make it easier" or "should we make it harder" that option was never on the table...its mere fantasy.

            The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question act

            • by gfxguy (98788) on Monday July 11, 2011 @09:54AM (#36720454)

              The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.

              If you insist on that kind of hyperbole, then I'll just leave it as is and answer "yes," seeing how "persecute people 'for no other reason'" means "persecute people for creating an even more dangerous situation than driving already is."

            • The fact is there were already laws on the books against distracted driving. The problem is that it isn't an "exciting" infraction to enforce.

              Cops have a really thick book of possible tickets to write but if the infraction isn't exciting or "sexy". the cops aren't writing tickets. Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way. This can be from obliviousness (cells and whatnot), aggression, stupidity, ignorance, etc. When this driving behavior is witnessed
          • by bkaul01 (619795)

            are you saying cellphone use should be allowed while driving because younger drivers will be distracted anyway?

            Not sure if he was saying that, but I would, out of agreement with this:

            Obviously you can't eliminate all distractions.

            I don't think that trying to come up with laws to cover every particular distraction is a good approach. We should through the education/licensing process encourage people to be more attentive drivers, and laws against distracted driving in general that can be applied whatever the distraction to reinforce this can be beneficial. But trying to single out some distractions (e.g. cell phone use) comes at the expense of others, implying tha

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        90% of all young driver accidents are due to lack of education, and lack of common sense. I can make it in front of the train... Smoosh.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing. Which is why most instructors have stopped using the term "accident." You might not be able to control what the person behind you is doing, but whenever there's an accident somebody could have done something about it.

          The types of accidents where nobody is at fault are pretty rare. Usually it pretty much takes a gaping hole to open directly under the car for that to happen.

          • by s73v3r (963317)

            Somebody could have been doing something, yes, but there are many accidents where neither of the vehicles involved would be at fault, but rather, a 3rd car.

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      actually here comes the a: showing that cops have been encouraged to link electronic devices to accidents for the greater part of 10 years and b: the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.

      The reality is that even the radio can cause a distraction/accident. Yet when are we going to address having things we actually enjoy in our car? oh, right. I think th

    • According to the report, drivers reported engaging in these other types of distracting behaviors:

      81% talked to other passengers;
      66% changed radio stations or looked for CDs or tapes;
      49% ate or drank something;
      24% dealt with children riding in the rear seat.

      So we should probably ban all that, too.

  • by Kanel (1105463) on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:49AM (#36719670) Journal

    Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?

    • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:55AM (#36719742)

      Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

      Maybe, but I have a feeling that what's happening is the number hasn't changed much, but before it was the radio and CD player. Something to consider: Cell phone bills will say very clearly whether or not it was involved, radios and CD players have no such tattling technology.

      • by rrossman2 (844318)

        I remember reading about how when cars were first getting radios, some people wanted them banned because they were a distraction and caused accidents. I guess it's only logical that the replacement and/or add-on devices would also receive the same stigma. That's not to say texting while driving isn't worse, but that any new gadget causes a bigger distraction when the operator isn't use to the unit.

        An example is my old Motorola E815... with T9 and having used it enough, I could text (in any setting.. doesn't

        • by mark-t (151149)
          True... the thing that saved car radios was the invention of the preprogrammed station buttons that people now take for granted on car radios, and which made it possible for people to accurately tune them to their favorite stations without having to divert their eyes or attention from the road.
        • by Jaktar (975138) on Monday July 11, 2011 @09:27AM (#36720140)

          My wife always wondered why I was so adamant about not talking to her when she'd call me while she was driving. About a year ago she was in some stop-and-go traffic next to a person who was both making calls and texting during the traffic jam. At one point the traffic picked up speed and then slowed again but they didn't notice as they were too busy pushing buttons. She watched as the person was decapitated during the impact. She doesn't call me while driving anymore.

          It doesn't kill you 99.9% of the time but that one time is a doozy.

          • by MikeURL (890801)

            I used to watch people behind me with a wary eye. Now I watch them in sheer terror. There are people full on texting while driving a vehicle. This is crazy. I feel like I have to watch the car in front of me and the one behind.

            If I see that person doing something they should not be then I'll exaggerate my braking swerve. Human eyes are very well trained to notice something moving laterally in their field of vision.

          • I once phoned my GF while she was driving, and her brother was in the car, so she just passed the phone to him, and I gave him the message for her. Later, she apologized for not talking to me herself, and I told her no problem. I'd much rather she let her brother talk to me and keep her attention on the road.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      Actually, yes... I remember reading a report in the newspaper a number of years ago that indicated an unexpected and fairly rapid increase in the number of accidents that were happening as cell phone use started become quite popular, and that if one were to simply not count the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, the number of remaining accidents were well within any increase that could be perceived of as typical. The actual percentage increase was not mentioned... only that i

      • Actually, yes... I remember reading a report in the newspaper a number of years ago that indicated an unexpected and fairly rapid increase in the number of accidents that were happening as cell phone use started become quite popular, and that if one were to simply not count the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, the number of remaining accidents were well within any increase that could be perceived of as typical. The actual percentage increase was not mentioned... only that it

      • by Asic Eng (193332)

        Well the study states that "Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about half when they were first implemented. [...] the laws appear to have had some longterm effect." and "There is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes."

        So the bans have an effect (fewer people use cell phones while driving) but the crash rate is not noticeably reduced as a result. That suggest that there is not much of a connection between cell phone use and car crashes.

    • by vlm (69642)

      Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

      It means its more socially acceptable to tell people you were distracted by an incoming SMS message than you were scratching your itchy rear.

      It means its more socially acceptable to tell people its a terrible shame that your boss requires you to carry and respond to a cellphone, than to say you were just plain ole spacing out or staring at a hottie on the sidewalk.

      It means its more socially acceptable to tell people your cellphone ringtone startled you, than to admit you were driving sleepy and nodded off.

      R

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Monday July 11, 2011 @09:33AM (#36720194) Homepage

        With 32,708 deaths on US roads last year, word games won't solve the problem.

        Obviously analysing the cause of every accident and endeavouring to eliminate the greatest causes by percentage will have the greatest impact upon reducing road tolls.

        The the current generation of youth addicted to cell phones and texting, in fact taking priority over every other activity (they will practically stop anything they are doing to answer the phone and their use has to be actively banned to prevent this occurring).

        Whilst the telecom and their marketdroids benefit by this action, this distraction at critical moments whilst driving causes problems, problem that lead to death and debilitating injury. Obviously ensuring people remain as focused as possible upon driving will reduce car accidents. Perhaps greater personal liability for causing an accident is warranted, some time cooling your lead foot in a low security detention facility (something that insurance won't cover). Perhaps further reductions to speed limits. Perhaps subsidised taxi's. Perhaps expanded, safer and cleaner public transport. Perhaps, lateral thinking, like easier access to 'quality' high density housing to promote foot traffic.

        • by bth (635955)
          If 50% of the accidents are caused by men, does that mean men shouldn't be allowed to drive? There are standards in the scientific community for how to do valid prospective and retrospective studies. You can then measure whether using or not using something actually increases (or not) your probability of experiencing the undesirable event.
    • by jandersen (462034)

      Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

      No - the only reasonable meaning one can put into it is that they went through the data for a number of accidents and found that gadget use was involved in 25% of them.

      • by Asic Eng (193332)

        [...] found that gadget use was involved in 25% of them.

        Which doesn't necessarily mean a lot, if gadget use is widespread. E.g. if 50% of people have AC running in their cars, then you'd have to expect that in 50% of cars involved in a crash the AC would be turned on. Measuring these 50% would only lead to the conclusion that AC use has no impact on car safety.

    • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Monday July 11, 2011 @10:07AM (#36720628)

      Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?

      Hi, it's my first day here, so I read TFA and TFP. The paper addresses these issues:

      Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.

      Fowles et al. (2010) studied the effects of cell phones on fatality rates from a “classical econometric” and quite technical point of view. They considered the effects of broad social and economic variables such as beer consumption, proportion of young males, seat belt laws, and the number of cell phone subscribers on annual fatality rates from 1980 to 2004. They concluded that fatality rates increased as cell phones first began to be used, then decreased as cell phone use rose, and finally increased again more recently. They attributed the positive effect of cell phones in the middle period to their use to call for emergency assistance at a crash. Now that cell phones are almost universal, their negative effects in distracting drivers overcome these positive effects. “The bottom line is that cell phones now have an adverse effect on motor vehicle fatality rates.”

    • It means that the submitter didn't appear to actually read the study.

      From the study, page 26: "Flanagan and Sayer (2010) critiqued the National Safety Council’s study. They noted that NHTSA (2010a) estimates that 18-22% of all crashes are associated with (but not necessarily caused by) all forms of distraction while NSC estimates that 25% are caused by cell phone use alone. Using different values than NSC for the risk of cell phone use, the frequency of use while driving, the presence of multiple caus

    • by PRMan (959735)
      These statistics are completely false. Anyone can download California's statistics right here: http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ [ca.gov] Notice they care about alcohol drugs as a special category despite being responsible for less than 10% of accidents, but not gadgets because they are even less than that.
  • by pizza_milkshake (580452) on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:49AM (#36719672)
    it skyrockets to 100%
  • by wsxyz (543068) on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:53AM (#36719710)
    Does that mean I shouldn't be reading Slashdot while driving then?
    • Not if read by the robotic overload, but you probably shouldn't have posted while driving. ;-)

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      No, it just means you shouldn't be posting... wait why is everyone going the wrong way on this highw-

  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@cGINSBERGarpanet.net minus poet> on Monday July 11, 2011 @08:54AM (#36719724) Homepage

    How the highway safety folks....

    A) Always lead with the high side number. 15-25% so its either this number, or as low as half that. Yes, clearly the high number is the one to report, alone.
    B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.
    C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed

    Course, if they did any of that, it may not make their jobs sound very relevant.

    • by Moryath (553296)

      C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed

      Ironically, attention to What The Fuck They Are Doing While Driving has been going down since the automatic transmission was invented. People don't have to pay attention to the state of their car (speed AND tachometer reading and associated gear choice), they just go "ooh put it in drive, gas=go, vroom vroom."

      Likewise, in

      • by PitaBred (632671)

        Pretty sure George Carlin talked about having all safety devices removed and replaced with a huge metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointed right at the driver ;)

    • How the highway safety folks....

      B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.

      Actually, yes. From TFP:

      NHTSA estimates that 16% of fatal crashes and 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver (NHTSA, 2010a).

      From a another study quoted in the paper:

      Farmer et al. (2010) combined the fourfold increase in crash risk while using a cell phone from the McEvoy et al. and Redelmeier and Tibshirani studies with the 7% cell phone use rate while driving obtained in a telephone survey to conclude that cell phone use caused 1.3 million crashes in 2008, or about 22% of all crashes, 19% of all fatal crashes, and 23% of all injury crashes. The National Safety Council (NSC) (2010a, 2010b) used similar methods to produce a similar estimate: 25% of all crashes are caused by cell phones.

      And as to the question (in a nearby thread) of additional accidents due to distraction by gadgets . . .

      Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Where is it that the highway safety folks "lead with the high side number"? Or are you thinking of the Slashdot summary or the article (not the report) -- neither of which were written by "highway safety folks"?

  • ... and how to effectively address it

    Uh, stop using gadgets while driving?
  • If it's so bad and causes so many accidents, why are police allowed to use their personal cellphone while driving?
    Don't tell me it's their driver training, plenty of civilians can attend those classes and that doesn't exempt them.

    • So cities do not have to pay out when pigs on cellphones hit people.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      "Don't tell me it's their driver training, plenty of civilians can attend those classes and that doesn't exempt them."

      Really? lots of civilians attend police drivers training courses? I dont see many civillians taking training on skid pads or defensive driving.
      I think you just have no clue as to what kind of training cops get.

  • If anyone in the car has been drinking, or there's a 3 week old empty beer can in the bed of the truck -- It's an alcohol related accident; Even if the driver is sober/designated, and/or those open cans are in-route to the recyclers.

    I was once made to perform a field sobriety check at a DUI checkpoint because a passenger, my brother, was intoxicated (I was assumed drunk by relation, I suppose) -- I noted the officer's mention of my Sansa Media player to another, apparently this was a Gadget related 4th a

  • And gadgets have been around forever. How many accidents are caused by people messing with their radio? Touch screens are really, really a bad idea, and I'm always disappointed when there are so few, good head units that have physical knobs for adjusting playback and volume.

    The article seems to be more focused on the even more general "distractions":

    ...distractions affect our driving performance and how drivers are typically distracted most of time. One thing that stood out of the report was the claim that being distracted was the cause of 15 to 25% of all accidents

    Duh. Passengers talking, kids doing practically everything kids do, Billboards, airports (I fear for my life when my former Air Force father-in-law passes a

    • Working in the field of transportation safety research (including distraction) my observation is that people over-estimate the control of the device as a problem (punching in the phone number), and under-estimate the mental resources dedicated to the task (the conversation). This is why radios, fast food, and other "distractions" don't generally produce the same level of effect as cell phones.

      It doesn't make a lot of resources to push the button (assuming you already know how to operate the device) or sh

    • by mark-t (151149)

      "How many accidents are caused by people messing with their radio?"

      Statistically, not as many as are caused by that as are by cell phone use.

      Also... while it is true that the introduction of car radios resulted in an increase in accidents, this increase subsided when preprogrammed station buttons were invented, which made it possible for people to adjust their radio to their favorite stations wholly by tactile sensation, and they did not have to divert their eyes and attention from the road.

      Of course

  • That even though I live in a 'hands free driving' state, that whenever I pass a police officer, they have a cell phone up to their ear. So there is a law in place and I don't think I've seen it enforced. Does talking on the cell phone or texting while driving affect the driver? For most folks, hell yes. I can't count the times that I've come up on a driver who's going too slow in the far left lane, or going outside their lane, and passing them only to see them talking on their phone.

    But the true 'root' caus

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Cops are exempt from the law.

    • by gfxguy (98788)

      That even though I live in a 'hands free driving' state, that whenever I pass a police officer, they have a cell phone up to their ear. So there is a law in place and I don't think I've seen it enforced. Does talking on the cell phone or texting while driving affect the driver? For most folks, hell yes.

      Yes, I see cops violating the law all the time... speeding when they obviously are not on a call, failing to signal, tailgating... As for your last sentence, it's not "most follks," it's everybody .

      But the t

    • by jittles (1613415)
      If you're referring to the great state of California, then yes, the cell phone law is enforced. I moved away from California a few months after the law was introduced. I have a hard time remembering not to answer the phone when I go home to visit, because I am not used to it. I do have occasion to visit military installations, which also prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. But for some reason, I never forget there. Interestingly enough, on a military installation you cannot even legally use
  • The study talks about the fact that distracted driving involves more than just cellphones, then most of their recomendations involve restricting the use of cellphones while driving. When they talk about the only objective basis they have for analyzing the impact of distracted driving (the actual accident reports) they lump all distracted driving into one category and do not give you any idea of what percentage of those involve cellphone use and what percentage involve other things (like changing the radio s
  • FTA: "Distracted driving definitions. Distracted driving immediately brings to
    mind cell phones and texting, and perhaps use of other electronic devices.
    But there are many more driving distractions: activities like eating, changing
    a CD, or talking to other passengers; billboards or other objects outside the
    car; even planning the day’s work, rehashing an emotional moment from the
    previous night, or just daydreaming. It is useful to begin by defining what
    distracted driving means. "

    Glad to see this study a

    • by djlemma (1053860)

      Glad to see this study acknowledges that there are an awful lot of distractions other than cellphones, most of which can't reasonably be banned. It also mentions that there's no evidence that cellphone or texting bans have any effect on accident rate. So focussing all attention on banning cellphone usage is not the solution, or at least not the only solution. Personally thing most likely to distract me is incompetent drivers who don't know which lane they're supposed to be in, when to signal, or when to join a roundabout. Learn to drive, people.

      I think you bring up a good point. More thorough driver training and testing could probably do a much better job at reducing accident than enacting a bunch of laws that may or may not work. I was fairly shocked at the contrast between motorcycle license exams and regular car exams, for instance- On my bike, I had to demonstrate my ability to do figure 8's, emergency stops, S-curves (with a stopwatch to make sure I didn't go too slowly) and a bunch of other stuff. When I got my regular car license all I h

  • A few days ago I over took another car on a high way and the driver had a kindel on his stearing wheel.

    Obvioulsy he was driving and reading same time ...

    Scary!

    • Before kindles, idiots were trying to read newspapers or books while driving (I actually saw some of that).

      • Before kindles, idiots were trying to read newspapers or books while driving (I actually saw some of that).

        One memorable evening, my uncle saw a vehicle weaving across a multilane highway. He assumed that the driver was drunk, until he got close enough to discover that she was actually knitting.

    • by jittles (1613415)
      I kid you not, I literally passed someone playing a trumpet while driving a few months ago.
  • Just remember:
    People in cars cause accidents.
    Accidents in cars cause people.
  • On the bus, train, or streetcar, or an airplane if you're going between cities, you can use any device you want except a music player without headphones (which is against the rules on probably most systems). I take the Chicago Transit Authority's buses and trains all the time, plus Metra trains on occasion, and loads of people are always using newspapers, books, Kindles, smartphones, iPods, iPads, you name it. They had to crack down on the drivers using phones a while back, but for everyone else it's not
  • The actual study says that 25% of accidents are caused by distracted driving, not by gadgets per-se. Their list of distractions include (among other things):

    1) Vehicle controls/displays.
    2) Food.
    3) Scenery / roadside features.
    4) Daydreaming.

  • When you listen to the stereo, or talk to a passenger, you keep your eyes on the road. Now, perhaps your responses are slightly diminished, but not by much.

    When you look down at a smart phone and text somebody, looking up periodically for a moment is nearly useless. When you've broken the continuous processing of deltas in a scene, and you try to reestablish that understanding by looking up, the first few seconds are used by your brain to figure out what everything is and where it is... not "what's evolv
  • 1.) What exactly does "linked" mean? If it's not causal, who gives a shit? 2.) What was their data set, how did they calculate 25%? I RTFA - and by the way, it reads a whole lot like and ad. Bonus points, skimming through the citations at the bottom you will find a comprehensive list of insurance companies' shell "safety" organizations (you know, the kind that tell you about Officer McNab on the radio or how about cops are "cracking down")

Forty two.

Working...