American Public University System
DigitalCommons@APUS
Master's Capstone Theses
8-2014
Emergency Vehicle LED Lighting: Friend or Foe?
Matthew Smith Bright
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/theses
Part of the Emergency and Disaster Management Commons
Recommended Citation
Bright, Matthew Smith, "Emergency Vehicle LED Lighting: Friend or Foe?" (2014). Master's Capstone Theses. Paper 17.
This Capstone-Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@APUS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Capstone
Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@APUS. For more information, please contact [email protected].
School of Public Service and Health
Public Administration
The thesis for the Master’s degree submitted by
Matthew Smith Bright
under the title
EMERGENCY VEHICLE LED LIGHTING: FRIEND OR FOE?
has been read by the undersigned. It is hereby recommended for acceptance by the
faculty with credit to the amount of 3 semester hours.
Christi Scott Bartman
Christi Scott Bartman, MPA, JD, PhD
Associate Professor
American Public University System
(Date)
June 27, 2014
Recommended for approval on behalf of the program
___Kristen Osborne Obst______________________ (Date) 18 August 2014_____
Kristen Osborne Obst, PhD
Program Director
Public Administration Program
Recommended on behalf of the program director
______________________________________________________ (Date) ______________________________
Approved by academic dean
EMERGENCY VEHICLE LED LIGHTING: FRIEND OR FOE?
A Master Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
American Public University
by
Matthew Smith Bright
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Public Administration
June 2014
American Public University
Charles Town, WV
The author hereby grants the American Public University System the right to display these
contents for educational purposes.
The author assumes total responsibility for meeting the requirements set by United States
copyright law for the inclusion of any materials that are not the author’s creation or in the public
domain.
© Copyright 2014 by Matthew Smith Bright
All rights reserved.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my wife Michelle, my children David and Emma, and to the rest
of my family. It is only through their unrelenting support for my continuing studies and their
unwavering love that has made completion of this research a possibility.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Dr. Christi Bartman for her patience and guidance during the entire thesis
process. For a variety of reasons, the process was quite painstaking, but her confidence was
unwavering, and she consistently provided the necessary encouragement to complete this
journey. I also wish to thank the faculty and staff at American Public University for ensuring a
well-rounded education, and for providing continued support throughout my time with the
university.
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
EMERGENCY VEHICLE LED LIGHTING: FRIEND OR FOE?
by
Matthew Smith Bright
American Public University System, June 23, 2014
Charles Town, West Virginia
Dr. Christi Bartman, Thesis Professor
LED emergency lights are one of the newest tools emergency responders are using to be
visible. These lights are not without concern however. The purpose of this research is to
address the primary question: Does the use of LED lighting on emergency vehicles
contribute to secondary or subsequent collisions at accident scenes? Literature was
reviewed on the topics of emergency vehicle and worker conspicuity, lighting color and
flash patterns for emergency lighting, and driver distraction. Secondary research
questions answered were: 1) What is the prevalence (both before and after LED) of
secondary or subsequent accidents during emergency response activities? 2) How does
LED lighting affect driver perception during nighttime and inclement weather? 3) What
is the relationship between driver perception of an accident and their subsequent
reaction?
Research was then contrasted with the reviewed literature and
recommendations were made including: adding emergency vehicle specific elements to
nationwide uniform crash reporting, future research for LED lighting level standards, and
manufacturer standard for auto-dimming LED emergency lights.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I.
II.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ………………………………………………………...7
Emergency vehicle and worker conspicuity ......................................................................7
Lighting color and flash patterns for emergency lighting ……………………………….10
Driver distraction ……………………………………………………………………..…13
III.
METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………...14
Prevalence of secondary accidents ……………………………………………………...15
Effect of LED during nighttime and inclement weather..……….………………………17
Driver accident perception and reaction ...………………………………………………18
IV.
RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………….....19
Prevalence of secondary accidents ………………………………………………………19
Effect of LED during nighttime and inclement weather ………………………………...25
Driver accident perception and reaction………………………………………………....31
V.
DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………………….......37
VI.
CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………….……….43
LIST OF REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………..46
APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………………………….......56
1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1. DOT reflective markings ………………………………………………………………............8
2. Fire apparatus rear reflectivity ………………………………………………………………...9
3. ANSI/ISEA 207-2006 Compliant Reflective Vest …………………………………………...10
4. Work Zone and Emergency Vehicle Related Fatalities 1995-1999 ………………………….20
5. Work Zone and Emergency Vehicle Related Fatalities 2008-2012 ………………………….21
6. NIOSH Fatality Report Incident Times ……………………………………………………....22
7. Means for eye movement measures ………………………………………………………….28
8. Diagram of billboard reaction distance and sightline from Ohio study ……………………...29
9. Odds ratio point estimates of likelihood of at-fault crash while driving inattentive …………31
10. Hazard perception response times: Novice versus experienced driver ……..…….…………33
11. Hazard perception and secondary tasks in teens – month 0 vs. month 12 …………………..34
12. Driver involvement rates per 100,000 licensed drivers by age, sex, crash severity………....35
2
Introduction
A few years ago, while on duty at a local fire department, there was a call to render aid to
a fellow emergency services worker, in this case a deputy sheriff who had been injured while
waiting on a wrecker to tow a vehicle that had been disabled on the side of the roadway. The
call came across the speakers just after dark, and all sat and listened as the reports came in that
the deputy had been struck by a passing vehicle. Sadly, the deputy did not survive the incident.
To be sure, this is not an isolated incident. Each day across the nation, emergency workers
respond to calls for assistance. While the number of responses annually is enormous, for the
purposes of this research, only those responses which occur along the nation’s roadways,
primarily responding to automobile accidents will be evaluated.
Despite the tragedy, there have been many lessons learned by this accident as well as
many other similar ones in which emergency workers are struck while rendering aid on the
nation’s roadways. Visibility of responders and their vehicles has long been a concern,
beginning with the response itself, and then while operating at accident scenes. Recently enacted
legislation via organizations like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as
well as national standards issued by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), has
forced responders to become increasingly aware of these issues by requiring the use of approved
reflective vests.
Distraction-related incidents like the one discussed above include those where drivers are
using cellular phones or otherwise engaged with technology inside the vehicle. Other types of
distraction-related accidents include those in which the driver becomes blinded by billboards, as
well as diverted by events taking place outside the vehicle. Because of the potential for
3
distraction as well as importance for visibility, lighting on and along the nation’s roadways has
long been looked at from many different angles. All different types of lighting have been
reviewed by researchers for benefits and drawbacks. The available past research includes
investigation into streetlights, stoplights, billboards (Young & Mahfoud, 2007), and vehicle
lighting, as well as other issues pertaining to driver distraction (Klaur, Dingus, Neal, Sudweeks
& Ramsey, 2006; Wallace, 2003; Stutts, Reinfurt, Staplin & Rodgman, 2001). It seems clear to
assume that the issue of a driver’s ability to discern what is going on around them while limiting
the amount of distraction is essential in order to avoid a secondary or subsequent collision.
More specific to the topic of vehicle accidents, the United States Fire Administration
(USFA) in 2004 issued a report on Emergency Vehicle Safety. Within this report prior research
from a 1978 study conducted by the National Bureau of Standards was cited which indicated
that, “as the number of flashing lights increase, the ability of drivers to quickly respond to the
emergency message decreases” (United States Fire Administration, 2004). Other
recommendations by USFA include the reduction in the amount of lighting in use on the
roadway. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices also cites a need for light reduction
at emergency scenes especially those of the “forward facing” (Federal Highway Administration,
2009) variety.
Specifically to night-time operations, the manual also outlines the following:
Because the glare from floodlights or vehicle headlights can impair the nighttime
vision of approaching road users, any floodlights or vehicle headlights that are not
needed for illumination, or to provide notice to other road users of an incident
response vehicle being in an unexpected location, should be turned off at night
(Federal Highway Administration, 2009).
4
Although there have been many advances in safety for both drivers as well as for first
responders, accidents still occur. In fact, according to the most recently released statistics by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) traffic related fatalities increased
3.3% between 2011 and 2012 claiming 33,561 lives and injuring hundreds of thousands more
(National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, 2013). Despite the increase in fatalities, the
most pertinent finding to this research issued by the NHTSA (2013) is a 9% increase in the
number of people injured in “distraction-affected” incidents. This is compounded by the fact
that the “NHTSA is just beginning to identify distraction-related accidents, and is continuing
work to improve the way it captures data to better quantify and identify potential trends in this
area” (Key 2012 statistics). Clearly, although agencies such as the NHTSA are tasked with
tracking distracted-driving data, acquiring such data and putting it to good use is still in its
infancy. As a result, the problem remains; whether or not passing drivers are distracted, or even
blinded by modern LED emergency vehicle lighting that is in use on the scene. Due to the fact
that there is at least on the surface a potential for modern LED emergency vehicle lighting to
cause or perhaps contribute to driver distraction, it is essential answer this question.
The purpose of this research is to identify the existence or non-existence of a relationship
between the use of LED emergency vehicle lighting during nighttime hours and inclement
weather, and secondary traffic accidents or “close calls” as a result of driver distraction. In
order to shed light onto whether or not these modern lights cause a hazard to passing motorists
and subsequently responders, it is necessary to look at several facets of the issue. Thus, the
main research question is: Does the use of LED lighting on emergency vehicles contribute to
secondary or subsequent collisions at accident scenes? Secondary questions will also need to be
answered including the following:
5
•
What is the prevalence (both before and after LED) of secondary or subsequent
accidents during emergency response activities?
•
How does LED lighting affect driver perception during nighttime and inclement
weather?
•
What is the relationship between driver perception of an accident and their
subsequent reaction?
Emergency responders are there to rectify a bad situation and help those in need. First
among their priorities is the saving of lives. The mere conjecture that their very own LED
emergency vehicle lighting could be contributory to subsequent accidents must therefore be
examined more closely. For years workers have thought that more lighting is better (United
States Fire Administration, 2004). As a result, less power demanding LED lighting has yielded
not only more lighting on vehicles, but higher intensity lighting as well. Perhaps the single
greatest change for emergency vehicles is the fact that LED lighting has a substantially lower
power demand on the vehicle. The result is that LED lighting is not only used during response,
but to provide for overall white scene lighting. Ultimately this has reduced maintenance
expenses for departments, as well as reduced apparatus costs since the need for high output
alternators and pricey on-board generators has in large part been nullified.
Certainly, from a cost standpoint, the benefits of LED emergency vehicle lighting are
difficult if not impossible to ignore. Regardless of the benefit, should the completed research
indicate that there is a correlation between LED emergency vehicle lighting and an increase in
secondary or subsequent collisions, the implications of this research could well suggest changes
in national standards such as those published by the National Fire Protection Association and the
Federal Highway Administration.
6
Conceptual Framework
Emergency personnel are often faced with unknown and unseen dangers. Sadly this has
long been the case when operating in, on, or around their emergency vehicles. The types of
dangers vary from becoming involved in an accident while responding, to being struck while
working at an emergency scene. These dangers are only compounded when darkness or
inclement weather become an issue. To protect themselves, responders are reliant upon the
effectiveness of their emergency warning devices, including lighting. Primarily as a result of the
dangers faced by emergency responders, a great deal of research has been conducted into the
effectiveness of the many different types of emergency vehicle lighting.
A review of the prior literature and research on the topic of emergency vehicle lighting
including LED lighting will not only provide the foundation for, but also serve as a back drop
with which to compare and contrast new research findings. In order to better organize the
mountain of available literature as well as to sharpen the focus on the most relevant information,
reviewed material will be confined to the following areas: Emergency vehicle and worker
conspicuity, lighting color and flash patterns for emergency lighting, as well as LED lighting and
the effects of driver visual distraction.
Emergency vehicle and worker conspicuity
When reviewing literature surrounding emergency vehicles and related collisions, it
became increasingly obvious that one of the most important factors with regards to emergency
worker safety while operating on roadways is the concept of conspicuity. The Merriam-Webster
on-line dictionary defines “conspicuous” as, “(1) obvious to the eye or mind; or (2) attracting
attention” (Conspicuous, n.d.). To that end, it would seem almost intuitive that the most
7
conspicuous workers and vehicles are the safest. This belief amongst emergency workers,
though anecdotal at best, has long been behind the drive to place more and brighter emergency
lights upon the nation’s emergency vehicles. Still, conspicuity is not simply the idea that
workers and vehicles can be seen; but from an oncoming driver’s perspective, it also refers to the
idea that the same driver can comprehend the situation which is in front of them and react
appropriately. In fact, some researchers have suggested, “drivers may have difficulties in
visually detecting emergency vehicles in different environments.” (Drucker et al., 2013 p. 122)
Issues pertaining to vehicle conspicuity are not confined merely to emergency vehicles.
In fact one of the most notable areas in which vehicles have been altered to increase conspicuity
was in the over the road trucking industry. Flannagan and Sullivan, (2012) point out that the
trucking industry started adding reflective materials to “all trailers exceeding 10,000 lbs (4,563
kg) or 80 inches (2,032 mm) in width and manufactured on or after December 1, 1993” (p. 157).
The thought was that due to a large amount of fatal collisions (as determined through NHTSA
data) which occurred in the darkness involving such trailers, if improving the visibility of or
outlining the trailers (Figure 1) was made a requirement there
would be a corresponding reduction in the number of serious
collisions nationwide. In their research of the time period
after the implementation of the new regulations it was found
that “there was a strong decline in the odds of nighttime
Figure 1: DOT reflective markings
versus daytime rear end and angle crashes of light vehicles into heavy trucks” (p. 161). Most
importantly, Flannagan and Sullivan reported, “the overall pattern of results strongly suggests
that the decline in crashes is primarily attributable to those treatments” (p. 161).
8
With regard to emergency vehicles, the issue of conspicuity increases in importance due
to the fact that often times these vehicles are parked within travel lanes during emergency
response activities. One study conducted in the UK on the conspicuity of parked police vehicles
reported that though these vehicles were “highly conspicuous” it was postulated that accidents
occurred because of a driver’s “’false hypothesis’ about the road conditions ahead” (Langham,
Hole, Edwards & O’Neil, 2002). This lends further credence to the idea that a driver must not
only see but comprehend what is unfolding in front of them as they go down the road.
In order to improve visibility during darkness, National standards such as those put out
by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have been updated with similar
requirements to those implemented by the nation’s trucking
industry. NFPA 1901, the standard for Automotive Fire
Apparatus, in 2008 not only increased the requirement for
reflective materials covering the apparatus, it also required
approved reflective vests for all occupants. Peters (2008) points
Figure 2: Fire apparatus rear
reflectivity
out that, “fifty percent of the rear-facing vertical surface must now
have red/yellow alternating strips in a chevron pattern” (Figure 2). Similarly the sides of the
vehicles must also have striping along “50 percent of the cab and body, excluding the pump
panel” (2008).
Much the same as with motor vehicles, passive reflectivity has been determined to be
essential for the protection of both emergency responders as well as all workers who conduct
operations along the nation’s roadways. While well-marked vehicles and warning lights help to
identify an emergency scene, they do not provide coverage for all areas in which workers are
operating. In response to the increasing awareness of the need for visibility, as well as for
9
improved worker safety, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) created visibility
standards starting in 1999 for all workers. The ANSI standards have been revised since, and now
include ANSI 207-2006 (Figure 3) which outlined
requirements for public safety personnel. Clearly, visibility of
not only vehicles but personnel is understood to be essential.
Perhaps the most interesting thing regarding the issue of
visibility of emergency personnel during nighttime incidents is
that Flannagan and Devonshire (2007) identified that “if
Figure 3: ANSI/ISEA 2072006 Compliant Reflective Vest
pedestrians have good retroreflective markings, even very high levels of warning lamp glare may
not reduce visibility below acceptable levels” (p.29). It is the purpose of the retroreflective
materials to “work like a mirror, reflecting light back to its source” (USFA, 2013, p.124).
While the findings of researchers may leave some room for question, passive reflectivity
of an object, either an individual or a vehicle, is clearly one of the most essential elements for the
safety of emergency responders at night. Very simply, if a worker or vehicle is not visible, it or
they are infinitely more likely to fall victim to a nighttime collision.
Lighting color and flash patterns for emergency lighting
In addition to vehicle reflectivity, emergency vehicle lighting remains an essential tool
for responders; not only to demand the right-of-way during a response phase of a call, but also to
provide indication to other motorists of a stationary vehicle operating at an emergency incident.
Tunnicliff (2005) points out that lighting,
allows identification at a distance sufficient for road users or pedestrians to take
appropriate action. This may be facilitating an unobstructed, speedy path for the
10
emergency vehicle or it may be avoiding the parked emergency vehicle and being
alert to possible hazards, traffic operations or random breath testing etc., provides
information about the speed and distance of the emergency vehicle, facilitates the
safe movement of emergency services workers or police around accidents (p. 2).
Perhaps equally important is the fact that warning lighting provides a method to transmit a
message to other drivers that emergency vehicles are at work (Turner, Wylde, Langham, &
Morrow, 2013). Still, with the variety of lighting systems available, as well as different colors
and flash patterns, questions remain as to the effectiveness of each.
In addition to alerting drivers of emergency vehicle presence, lighting and flash can
transmit other information based upon the color as well as the pattern being used.
Turner,
Wylde, Langham, & Morrow (2013) indicate that “perceptions of hazard and urgency could be
altered with the use of flash rates and patterns” (p. 3). This understanding of emergency vehicle
lighting has been conveyed into the new NFPA 1901 standard in which two modes of lighting
are discussed, specifically “calling for the right of way” and “blocking right of way” mode
(USFA, 2004). In general, fewer lights with slower more deliberate flash patterns block the right
of way, while more rapidly flashing lights would suggest a responding vehicle that is demanding
the right of way.
With regards to the color and intensity of emergency lighting, most everyone is familiar
with red, blue, and yellow vehicle lighting. Tunnicliff (2005) points out that these different
colors are often used in order to dictate the type of vehicle on which they are being displayed.
Yellow lighting often denotes some type of service vehicle while red and blue lighting is most
often reserved for emergency responders such as fire, police, and EMS. Regardless of the
11
purpose served, research conducted into the overall effectiveness of the different colors, as well
as their levels of intensity can provide some insight into which is the best. Flannagan, Blower, &
Devonshire (2008) suggest through their research that blue lights are the most effective overall
day or night. The USFA (2013) suggested that, “tests showed that the human eye is more
sensitive to blue lights at night and red lights during daylights hours” (p.65). Another suggestion
by Flannagan, Blower, & Devonshire (2008) is that using different intensities (i.e. higher
intensity for day and lower intensity for night) could provide the best possible solution for
emergency workers (p. 40). One other important assertion made by this research team was the
idea that “LED sources, for example can easily provide multiple light levels from the same
lamps, and better automatic controls for day and night conditions” (p. 41).
Over the course of time there have been many different types of lights put to use for
emergency vehicle lighting purposes. Original lights were incandescent bulbs, some of which
would flash, and then rotate a full 360° around the vehicle. Over time, halogen bulbs became
more widely used and along with them strobe lights found their way onto emergency apparatus.
LED lights are now the most common for emergency vehicles. While LEDs provide more
intensity and greater flexibility in terms of flash patterns, they also reduce the demands for power
placed upon the vehicle (USFA, 2013). LED sources were not widely used prior to 1999 and
have since “replaced strobe lighting as the preferred lighting in later research studies” (USFA,
2013, p. 63).
Ultimately emergency vehicle warning lighting provides an effective warning to other
either passing or oncoming motorists. Still, especially at night and during inclement weather,
these lights can prove to be distracting or “confusing” (USFA, 2013) to other drivers. Motorist
response may be delayed or altered as a result of the confusion and ultimately cause “traffic
12
congestion in the unaffected opposite lane(s) and increase the chance of a secondary collision”
(p. 125).
Driver distraction
Throughout the last decade, much attention has been focused upon the issue of distracted
driving. Much of this has been the result of driver inattention due to things within the vehicle
itself. These items include the stereo, making cellular phone calls, and most recently texting
while driving. Stutts, Reinfurt, Staplin & Rodgman (2001) suggest that these types of
distractions make up the greatest percentage of all distracted driving incidents. To be sure these
issues all have resulted in numerous accidents, still, it is not only items within the vehicle that are
the cause of all driver distraction. In fact, there are many accidents that occur annually in which
outside of the vehicle distraction played a major part.
Stutts, Reinfurt, Staplin & Rodgman (2001) also look at these external factors and after
studying crash data from 1995 through 1999, estimated that of the crashes which reported
distracted drivers, approximately 29% of those were attributed to distraction occurring outside of
the vehicle. This is a finding that is shared by other researchers such as Wallace (2003) who
reported that, “information from accident databases suggests that external-to-vehicle driver
distraction is a major contributory factor to road accidents” (p. 1). Still research into external
distraction related traffic accidents is difficult to come across. This is most likely a result of the
relative lack of adequate crash data from which to draw conclusions.
Specifically with regards to driver distraction and emergency vehicle lighting, one of the
most interesting items uncovered during review is that during a study conducted for the USFA
(2013), there are three specific hazards identified. The hazards are photosensitive epilepsy,
13
glare, and phototaxis. As it pertains to this research, the issue of glare appears to be of the most
interest. Within the report of findings, it is suggested that a level of disabling glare “occurred
with amber beacons, strobe beacons, and especially bright lights” (p.64). Clearly research has
indicated that LED lighting is intense and bright enough to cause such glare to be a distraction to
drivers.
Summary
Responder and emergency vehicle safety is a complex issue. Certainly the most obvious
warning devices to other motorists are the emergency vehicle lighting and the siren. It is the
overall conspicuity of the vehicle and the responder that causes oncoming motorists to react.
This means that not only must lighting be appropriate, but that vehicles and responders must be
outfitted with retro-reflective markings in order to be visible especially during nighttime and
inclement weather conditions. Despite all of these efforts to warn oncoming motorists, it seems
clear based upon reviewed literature that drivers are frequently distracted by things outside of
their vehicle. Further, research indicates a potential for LED lighting to be such a distraction
specifically as a result of the highly focused and intense light produced.
Methodology
While there is a mountain of available research conducted on emergency vehicle lighting
and responder safety, research about collisions caused by lighting is scarce. It is the purpose of
this research to begin to fill this void. Lighting on emergency vehicles serves two main
purposes, specifically, to demand right-of-way during the response phase, or to provide warning
to others while stationary at an incident scene. From what can be gleaned from prior research,
14
there has been a historical need for vehicles to be better seen specifically in daylight hours.
Likewise, responders also have a similar need when it is dark or during inclement weather.
Modern LED lighting would appear to be the ideal solution to the need to be seen. LED
lighting is more intense, and at least anecdotally should therefore be much better from a visibility
standpoint regardless of time of day. In fact, because the LED lights which are in use on today’s
emergency vehicles have been shown to be more effective in the daylight hours, it could be
reasonably expected that there should be a corresponding decline in the number of collisions
related to their use during those conditions as compared to halogen and incandescent lamps
which were more prominently in use merely a decade ago. Also, generally speaking, because the
nighttime visibility of conventional warning lighting has long been considered effective, it could
be assumed that the number of night collisions would either remain the same or actually decline.
Ultimately what this research seeks to determine is the answer to the question: Does the
use of LED lighting on emergency vehicles contribute to secondary or subsequent collisions?
The hypothesis is that LED lighting in use on emergency vehicles does contribute to collisions,
specifically during nighttime and inclement weather operations. In order to determine an answer
to this question as well as to prove or disprove the hypothesis, answers to the secondary
questions will be identified.
What is the prevalence (both before and after LED) of secondary or subsequent accidents during
emergency response activities?
This question will be answered by a careful examination of the Federal Highway
Administration national accident data. Data will be examined from a five-year period from
1995-1999 in order to attempt to ascertain the number of emergency vehicle related accidents.
15
This same data will be examined from 2008-2012 in order to determine numbers for accidents
occurring post-LED light prevalence. In addition to the number of emergency vehicle related
accidents, data will also be collected in order to determine time of day as well as weather
conditions.
One issue did arise during early study into this topic including during the literature
review. Several of the research articles identified the fact that normal reporting did a less than
adequate job of identifying issues such as the one posed by this research. Because there are
numerous references to this deficiency, it remains questionable as to whether or not such incident
reporting has become inclusive enough of distraction related issues in order to produce a more
effective data set.
As a measure to back-up or to dispel other findings, a periodical search will be
conducted. This periodical search will be conducted using the LexisNexis® academic search in
order to sift through metropolitan news. It was initially thought that focusing upon two cities
such as Indianapolis, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois would be sufficient, however broadening of
the focus to include the United States was found to be more appropriate. Because of the
prevalence of emergency vehicle involved collisions in larger metropolitan areas as well as the
regional nature of the news media in these cities, it is believed that this will provide an adequate
sample size when searched over the proposed same five-year periods. Where official agency
reporting and data collection may fail, the news media at a minimum may be able to provide
enough detail with which to create a sample set to analyze. A study of these news articles
pertaining to collisions with emergency vehicles will be conducted and time of day recorded as
well as lighting and weather information if available.
16
Although only prevalent recently, there are several Internet resources which will be
looked at for potential case study. Proposed Internet sources include; firefighterclosecalls.com,
firefighternearmiss.com, as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) website for injury and fatality reports. One additional limitation with regard to the
proposed Internet sources is the fact the both the close calls and near miss websites are reliant
upon personnel to report incidents as they happen. As a result of these limitations, it will be
difficult to identify case study from the earlier proposed time period. Still, the later time period
since the prevalence of LED lighting should have some valuable cases from which to draw
information.
How does LED lighting affect driver perception during nighttime and inclement weather?
As a result of the fact that a scientific study would be required to appropriately answer
this question and such expertise is beyond the scope of this paper, this study will rely on
descriptive means in order accomplish the task. There are many different studies that have been
conducted regarding LED lighting and its subsequent visual effects on drivers. Research into
items such as LED billboards, signs, and signals will be examined along with other vehicle
specific research. This will help to identify any issues pertaining to driver distraction and LED
lighting.
To focus specifically upon the inclement and nighttime weather issue, the same crash
data obtained from earlier research will be utilized in order to identify the overall number of
nighttime and weather related collisions occurring during each time period. It is possible, based
upon the hypothesis, that with the increasing use of LED lighting on emergency vehicles, that
there would be a corresponding increase in the number of accidents during these times.
17
What is the relationship between driver perception of an accident and their subsequent reaction?
Much the same as with the second question, descriptive research will be conducted in
order to best identify an answer to this question. Again, establishing such a relationship would
require an in-depth scientific study that is beyond the scope of this analysis. Still it is important
to identify how a driver understands what is unfolding in front of them at an emergency scene,
and how they respond to that understanding. Certainly scientists have conducted numerous
studies into visual scanning and subsequent driver perception. Similarly much research has been
conducted upon driver reaction both in terms of time to reaction as well as the reaction itself. In
order to best identify appropriate research, search terms including but not limited to; driver
reaction time, accident avoidance, and accident detection will be used. By analyzing scientific
research into areas such as these a review can be made in order to establish the relationship
between oncoming drivers and accident avoidance.
Summary
Upon determining an answer to the above research questions, answers will be compared
to information gleaned during the earlier literature review. It is believed that with the answers to
these questions it will be possible to either prove or disprove the hypothesis that LED emergency
vehicle lighting is a contributing factor in secondary or subsequent traffic accidents. At a
minimum, this research will provide more indications of areas for future research.
18
Results
After conducting the literature review and determining a methodology for this research, it
was anticipated, based upon the findings of many other researchers that there would be some
difficulty locating pertinent research data due in large part on a lack of complete reporting. It
was thought that through the use of more unconventional means, such as news analysis, that
some of this data could be mined. Still, with scant reporting, it should be no surprise that when
beginning the research process, much of the anticipated data elements proved very difficult, and
in several cases impossible to locate.
What is the prevalence (both before and after LED) of secondary or subsequent accidents during
emergency response activities?
As identified earlier, scarce reporting makes this question one of the most difficult to
answer. When attempting to locate data on this issue the first thing noticed was that the data
provided within the NHTSA reports does not indicate anything about whether or not an accident
occurred at or in the immediate vicinity of emergency workers. What was however readily
available was data which indicated the number of fatal incidents which involved both emergency
vehicles, as well as with highway construction workers or those which were killed in roadway
work zones. With regard to the emergency vehicle data, there was no distinction as to whether
or not the vehicle was stationary at an emergency scene or was in a response mode. The data
does however delineate between the vehicle in emergency operation (lights/siren) or nonemergency operation. For the purposes of this research, focus will center on the fatalities
involving vehicles in emergency operation only.
19
During the first five-year period studied, 1995-1999, work zone fatalities ranged from
658 in 1997 to a high of 868 in 1999. At the same time fatalities involving emergency vehicles
were at the highest with 88 in 1996 and the lowest in 1999 with 52. The five-year average for
work zone related fatalities was 758 per year, and for emergency vehicle related (during
emergency use only) fatalities the average was 77 per year. (See Appendix 1: Fatalities 19951999)
Figure 4.
Work Zone and Emergency Vehicle Related
Fatalities 1995-1999
1000
900
# Of Fatalities
800
700
600
500
Work Zone
400
Emergency Use
300
200
100
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
In contrast to the findings from the earlier time period, an examination of the NHTSA
fatality data from the 2008 through 2012 time-period yielded somewhat different findings. Work
zone related fatalities were at a low of 576 in 2010, and a high of 720 in 2008. Similarly, the
highest recorded emergency vehicle fatalities (during emergency use only) were at a high in
2008 as well with 84 that year, and a low in 2011 with a total of 51. The average for this fiveyear period was 632 construction zone fatalities per year, and 63 emergency vehicle related
fatalities per year. (See Appendix 2: Fatalities 2008-2012)
20
Figure 5.
Work Zone and Emergency Vehicle Related
Fatalities 2008-2012
900
800
# Of Fatalities
700
600
500
Work Zone
400
Emergency Use
300
200
100
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Between the two time periods studied there was a decrease of approximately 17% in the number
of work zone related fatalities, as well as a roughly 18% decrease in the number of emergency
vehicle related fatalities.
The next data examined were the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) firefighter fatality investigation reports. As with the NHTSA data, an attempt was
made to review reports from the same two five-year periods. Upon attempting to do so however,
the data from the earlier time period 1995-1999 was minimal at best. Only 1998 and 1999
reports were well represented. Still the more contemporary time period was analyzed in order to
determine whether or not incidents occurred more frequently during darkness or during daylight
hours, as well as to see if there were any other commonalities between these incidents. After
scanning the reports available on the NIOSH website, 12 reports were identified as pertinent to
21
this research. While there were numerous fatality investigation reports, only the reports that
looked specifically at incidents in which firefighters were struck by a vehicle were examined.
Because incidents during low light and inclement weather were those being researched, it was
necessary to determine a timeframe to consider daylight hours. Many reports did not specifically
indicate lighting levels, but all did indicate the time of the actual incident (See Appendix 3). As
a result, for this research, the time from approximately 6 a.m. or 0600 hours, and 7 p.m. or 1900
hours, was considered to be during daylight hours. Daylight hours are denoted in grey in Figure
6 below.
Figure 6.
NIOSH Fatality Report Incident Times
0:00
22:30
22:29
21:36
19:34
19:12
18:09
16:48
14:24
12:00
14:01
12:28
11:30
11:10
Incident Time
9:36
7:12
4:48
4:50
4:33
2:24
0:00
2:13
0:24
Out of the reports examined, seven out of the twelve occurred during the presumed nighttime
hours, while only five occurred during daylight hours. Eight of the accidents were firefighters
22
struck while conducting scene operations, two were the result of backing incidents, one was
attributed to snowy conditions, and one with smoke obscuring the roadway (NIOSH, 2013). As
a result of the similarities of the incidents reviewed, there were three things that appeared to be a
recurring theme that were listed as contributing factors. The three things are; lack of appropriate
reflective vests, lack of 1901 chevrons on the rear of emergency vehicles, and in most all cases
inadequate traffic management.
After reviewing both the NHTSA and NIOSH data for any possible trends, news media
sources were reviewed in order to find reports of firefighters, police, or emergency medical
services (EMS) personnel who had either been struck-by or had a near miss with a vehicle while
conducting emergency scene operations. As with the NIOSH data, this too proved difficult.
Using the LexisNexis® provided minimal news stories between the two analyzed time periods.
EBSCO® was also used to conduct a similar search, along with a general Google® search for
news articles. Terms that were used to conduct searches included the following: “firefighter
struck”, “police officer struck”, “EMT struck”, “fire engine struck”, “ambulance struck”, and
“police car struck”. Along with those listed above, the terms “hit”, and “accident” were used in
place of “struck” in order to identify as many incidents as possible. Ultimately, in order to glean
50 incidents to survey for either time period, it was necessary to combine the news data with data
from the firefighterclosecalls.com website.
In the end, there were 50 incidents obtained from 2008 through present, but only 10 from
1999 and older. This provided some limitation in the research, although this could likely be the
result of older news stories not being digitized in the same manner many are currently. Further,
data from these incidents is reported in the words of responders in the case of the close calls site,
and through the lens of the media from the papers. As such, responder or media bias could
23
clearly be an issue. In order to limit this effect, the location if available was noted, day or night
was determined based upon the same criteria which were used for the NIOSH reports or in some
cases through photographs, and the type of incident i.e. responder or apparatus struck, etc. were
identified. Reports which indicated intoxicated or similarly impaired drivers, as well as fleeing
or stolen vehicles, as was found to be the case in several incidents involving law enforcement
personnel, were eliminated from the data set in an effort to confine the report as much as possible
to everyday drivers. (See Appendix 4)
The results of the news and Internet report survey yielded a set of 50 incidents from 2008
through present. Of these 50 incidents, 30 of them appear to have occurred during the evening,
dark or early morning, while 20 occurred during presumably daylight hours. This is in contrast
to the reports available from 1999 and earlier (10 in total), in which it appears that seven out of
those 10 occurred during the day. While this data is inconclusive due to the inability to draw a
larger sample size from pre 1999, it does at least anecdotally indicate the potential for more
frequent nighttime incidents most recently.
One of the most immediate issues when researching this topic was an absence of
conclusive data about secondary collisions occurring at accident scenes. Most often these types
of situations may have shown up in statistics as distracted drivers, but to draw a correlation to the
emergency event was impossible. Still, there was much evidence that supported the issue of the
near miss, or of emergency vehicles and responders being struck by passing motorists. Although
the data examined for this research did not provide a holy grail of evidence about the presence or
absence of secondary incidents as a direct result of LED emergency lighting, it does clearly
speak to the idea that a possibility exists that such lighting may be contributory to incidents
occurring during nighttime hours. Until better data is collected from responders as well as
24
victims and that information is entered into national databases where it can be polled for research
purposes, it will be difficult if not impossible to draw such correlations through a more iron clad
statistical analysis.
How does LED lighting affect driver perception during nighttime and inclement weather?
Light affects drivers in many different ways. On one hand there is the issue of the
visibility of emergency responders, but what happens when a driver approaches an emergency
scene and is staring head on into intense LED lights of varying color? Although an in-depth
study of the human reaction to these lights is beyond the scope of this research, there are many
other reports to draw from in order to answer this question.
Perhaps the easiest way to begin this discussion is to take a closer look at the most
contributory causes of death for responders who are struck. As outlined earlier, government
reports indicated that in many cases responders were not wearing reflective garments, or that
there was inadequate traffic control. One researcher who looked specifically at fire-police
officers over a 20-year period cited three similar factors, which included, “lack of visibility of
the victim, distractions and blinding caused by emergency vehicles at the incident, and moving
into the path of on-coming vehicles” (Fahy, 2011). Fahy reviewed 12 cases specifically and
found that, “In at least four cases, emergency apparatus warning lights that firefighters relied on
to increase the safety of their operations actually contributed to the incidents, by blinding or
distracting the drivers.” (2011, p. 6). As a result it is necessary, and indeed relevant, to the
identification of an answer for this question to examine outside of the vehicle distractions. Such
distractions can take many different forms. In most all of the cases reviewed and mentioned
earlier, the distractions caused by emergency response activities could have easily played a part
25
in the accident, or the near miss. As a result of the fact that the scarcity of data on emergency
incidents lends to an inherent lack of information on how, why, or if a driver was distracted, it is
necessary to determine the manner in which LED emergency lighting may have played a role by
examining how similar types of lighting affects drivers during other driving conditions.
Drivers are constantly bombarded with information from all angles while moving down
the nation’s roadways. In fact, according to the National Safety Council (NSC) (2012) white
paper regarding the distracted brain, “Drivers are looking out the windshield, but they do not
process everything in the roadway environment that they must know to effectively monitor their
surroundings, seek and identify potential hazards, and respond to unexpected situations” (p. 2).
Though the paper pertains primarily to the use of cellular phones and their effect on driver
distraction, it is clear that distractions, whether they come from within the vehicle or from
outside the vehicle, cause a loss of focus upon the primary task of driving.
One of the more recent developments in roadside advertisement, the LED or digital
advertising billboard, is one of the most dynamic signs a driver could come across while
traveling down the road. To that end, these billboards provide an excellent starting point when
determining how drivers react to such high intensity LED lighting. Over time much research has
been conducted as to the effects of these signs on the actions of drivers. Some of this has been
conducted by the advertising industry itself, and some from other organizations who would
advocate for more natural surroundings and less signage. Many of these reports will provide
useful information for this research topic. Because of the potential for bias on the part of these
studies, their findings must be viewed with added scrutiny. Instead relying solely upon these
research reports, an additional focus will be placed upon studies conducted by governmental
agencies and or third party researchers in order to minimize this potential.
26
There are many similarities between the reviewed studies as well as a few differences.
Many of the studies shared findings of driver attention deviation in the presence of digital
advertising. One study conducted by researchers at Virginia Tech identified that digital signage
was more attractive to the eye than conventional advertising (Lee, McElheny, & Gibbons, 2007).
These researchers also point out that the “intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable
even during the daytime” (p. 73) is the most plausible explanation for this phenomena. The
Virginia Tech team also looked at these signs under nighttime conditions and noted that the
results were very similar. To that end it was concluded that “it is thus quite likely that digital
signs with video, movement, higher luminance, shorter on-message duration, longer transition
times, and special effects would also be related to differences in driver behavior and
performance” (p. 73). Though billboards are not in question for this research, what is of interest
is this concept that these brilliantly lit signs with movement could potentially cause more driver
distraction.
Another interesting study about the use of roadside advertisement and the potential
effect upon passing motorist distraction was conducted by Crundall, Van Loon, and Underwood
(2006). This study took a closer look at the difference between street level advertisements (SLA)
and raised level advertisements (RLA) as well as the levels of driver distraction associated with
each. Figure 7 below shows the results of their study of the eye movements of 32 different
participants. The results of their study indicate, “SLAs tend to attract more attention than RLAs
but this is predominantly when participants were more concerned with looking for hazards” (p.
676). Perhaps their most pertinent assertion in terms of this research is that when drivers are in
or near a hazardous situation, and are thus actively searching for hazardous situations, becoming
fixated upon an SLA can mean that, “any required emergency maneuvers may be delayed,
27
increasing the likelihood of an accident” (p. 677). Since these SLAs are approximately located
ten feet above the ground, they are within the regular horizontal view the motorist, and are at an
ironically similar height to many emergency vehicle warning lights.
Figure 7.
(Crundall, D., Loon, E. V., & Underwood, G., 2006)
In addition other studies have looked at similar advertising media, including one done
in Los Angeles, CA Henson (2009). Henson sought to determine whether or not these billboards
caused motorist distraction and subsequently cause drivers to take their eyes off of the road,
swerve, and potentially increase accident rates within the vicinity of the newly installed digital
boards (p. 6). One interesting facet of these billboards that applies to this research is the “Viewer
Reaction Distance, simply meaning the distance to which a driver may be influenced by a
billboard” (p. 7). Henson used a diagram from an earlier Cleveland, Ohio report, which is
representative of this distance (see Figure 8). One thing of note when viewing this diagram is the
long distance involved for the elevated signs. Not only are they visible from a greater distance,
but this fact also means a longer time for a driver to react. Like many of the reviewed reports,
Henson’s could not conclusively determine a correlation between the billboards and accident
28
rates. He was however able to note that drivers were “more likely to glance at a digital billboard
as opposed to a standard billboard” (p. 21).
Figure 8.
(Lee, S., & McElheny, M., Gibbons, R., 2007)
In another study, this one pertaining to the effects of warning lamps and driver
behavior, Flannagan and Devonshire (2007), noted, “warning lamps, at least at the very high
light levels used in this study, can measurably reduce the visibility of pedestrians in an
emergency scene by causing glare for passing drivers” (p. 29). They also reported that not only
was there a reduction in the amount of glare created, but “flashing lamps also received higher
subjective attention-getting ratings” (p. 31) than lights which were on all the time. As a result of
these findings, the glare created by on scene emergency vehicle lighting must also be of major
concern in terms of driver reaction to presence of an emergency scene.
Glare and other vision related phenomena have been shown to cause problems for
passing motorists. Glare in fact can be divided into either “disabling or discomfort” (USFA,
2013, p. 64) glare. When glare is considered in the “discomfort” category, a passing motorist is
more likely to look aware from the light. When glare is considered in the “disabling” category, a
29
passing motorist “may be temporarily blinded and unable to see hazards in the road even when
looking directly toward them” (p.67). Adverse weather conditions only serve to make this
situation worse as does the use of eyeglasses and the windshield itself (p. 67). In addition to
glare, the USFA (p. 67) studies also outlined “Photosensitive Epilepsy” and “Phototaxis” as
points of concern. When emergency lighting flashes at an extremely high rate, though attention
getting, these lights can easily cause an epileptic seizure episode for motorists who may be
susceptible. Phototaxis on the other hand refers to the idea that where a beacon or emergency
light is concerned the viewer would be drawn towards it in what is known as the “moth-to-flame
effect” (p. 67). It is believed that this phenomena is exacerbated when a driver is under the
influence of either alcohol or drugs (p. 67).
One of the largest studies surveyed was conducted during actual driving conditions as
opposed to nearly all of the others that were primarily conducted in a more controlled
environment. Dingus et al. (2006) in their naturalistic driving study identified external driver
distractions (Figure 9) as the second most likely form of distraction to “increase the likelihood of
crash or near-crash involvement” (p. 29). In fact they went on to point out that when motorists
are not looking in the forward driving plane, and are focused elsewhere for more than two
seconds, the risks of a crash or near crash increases (p. 127). Another interesting finding by the
team was that during low light, bad weather, and demanding traffic situations were the worst
times for drivers to be distracted (p.127).
30
Figure 9.
(http://www.distraction.gov/research/pdf-files/the-100-car-naturalistic-driving-study.pdf)
While all of these studies have examined the issue of driver attention or distraction in
somewhat different contexts, all have recognized a potential for an external effect on passing
motorists. Simply, if eyes are not on the road and focus centered upon the driving task, there is
an increased likelihood of an unwanted and unnecessary accident.
What is the relationship between driver perception of an accident and their subsequent reaction?
Of course it is the intent of the emergency light to attract the eyes of oncoming or passing
motorists in an effort to either demand the right of way, or to warn motorists of the fact that they
are approaching an area in which emergency or roadway responders are at work. As such, in
order for a driver to avoid becoming part of the accident itself, they must first realize and
31
comprehend that there is an accident which has occurred in their path of travel. In his survey of
several research studies, Wallace (2003) noted most agreed that “too much ‘visual clutter’ at or
near intersections and junctions can interfere with drivers’ visual search strategies and lead to
accidents” (p. 190). If too much is going on in front of or around the driver, more interpretation
time is required and reaction time suffers. The consequence is then that the likelihood for
accident involvement increases.
Once an accident or hazard is perceived to be in front of a motorist they must react to it.
There are many issues that can affect the reaction time of a driver. “Hazard perception can be
considered as the first stage in responding to the presence of actual or potential hazards, with
subsequent steps including a decision about the hazard, and then an appropriate response”
(Smith, Horswill, Chambers, & Wetton, 2009b, p. 1). One crucial element in determining the
hazard is the driver being able to estimate the time it will take their vehicle to come upon or
interact with another. “The generally accepted model for judging time to arrival has been based
upon using information arising from a vehicle’s optical size and rate of optical expansion”
(Gould, Poulter, Helman & Wann, 2009 p. 171). Several things go into producing this judgment
however including vehicle size, vehicle speed if it is traveling, as well as other objects in motion
or “distractors in the scene” (p. 182). All of these judgments are made based upon prior
education or learned experience. “The Number of Hazardous situations that one may encounter
over a life time of driving experience is unlimited. Coping with these situations requires some
sort of categorization of similar situations to construct an organized conceptual knowledge of
hazards in the traffic environment” (Borowsky, Oron-Gilad, & Parmet, 2010 p. 305).
This reaction time can be affected by many different things. Because the main question
of this research pertains to nighttime driving, the issue of sleepy drivers becomes all the more
32
pertinent. The effect of sleep deprived motorists has been shown to be not only a major
contributing factor in motor vehicle collisions, but sleepiness also has been shown to increase
both the severity and potential for fatal injury in accidents (Smith, Horswill, Chambers, &
Wetton, 2009b). Smith et al. (2009b) go on to note in their research that, “accidents usually were
not preceded by microsleep events. Instead, increased ‘inattention and distractibility’ associated
with sleep deprivation comprises the majority of simulator driving failures” (p. 1). These effects
were also shown to be more pronounced in younger or novice drivers than in their older more
experienced counterparts (Figure 10). When comparing the differences between the novice
driver and the experienced drivers’ hazard perception rates during the night time study, the time
it took for younger drivers to perceive a hazard was nearly one second longer.
Figure 10
(Smith, Horswill, Chambers, & Wetton, 2009b p. 7)
The authors estimated that this increase in time to both recognize hazards at night as well as to
react to them could add up to an “an additional 12.80 metres of travel at 60km/h” (p.9). This is
approximately an additional 42 feet at around 37 miles per hour. The importance of this
33
nighttime study is relevant because as an examination of the NHTSA data for 2012 showed that
“midnight to 3 a.m.” (NHTSA, 2013 p. 63) were the deadliest hours on the nation’s roadways.
Much the same as with sleep deprivation, age and experience play a significant role in the
ability of a driver to react to a hazardous situation when encountered on the road. Novice
drivers, or those with little age or vehicle operation experience are more prone to collisions
(Pradhan, Simmons-Morton, Lee & Klauer, 2011). Further this is something that resolves
somewhat over time. By the end of the first year of driving, for example, it was identified that
the improvement in the ability of the novice (figure 11) to recognize hazards had become much
closer to that of a more experienced driver (p. 618). Within this study Pradhan et al. point out
that despite this improvement in recognition capabilities, the teenage drivers surveyed continued
to use a cell phone presumably under the “false impression that they are able to detect any
hazards on the roadway” (618). Still regardless of the improvement in driving ability, younger
Figure 11.
(Pradhan, Simmons-Morton, Lee & Klauer, 2011 p. 617)
drivers age 16-20 continue to account for more accidents annually in the United States than any
other age group (figure 12).
34
Figure 12.
(NHTSA, 2013)
Another issue identified while researching this topic was driver expectancy. Simply,
what a driver expects to be occurring in front of them or around them plays a vital role in the
manner in which they will react to changing conditions. Researchers reporting for the Society of
Engineers outlined this issue when discussing driver response to sudden emergencies. Citing
prior work from Luenenfeld and Alexander in 1990, the authors point out the following:
Expectancy relates to a driver’s readiness to respond to situations, events, and
information in predictable and successful ways. It influences the speed and
35
accuracy of driver information processing and is a major factor in design,
operation, and traffic control. Aspects of the highway system that agree with
commonly held expectancies facilitate the driver’s task. Violated expectancies,
on the other hand, lead to longer reaction time, confusion, inappropriate
responses, and errors. (Dilich, Kopernik, & Goebelbecker, 2002).
In short, as long as what is occurring while driving is part of an otherwise normal and expected
experience, a driver is able to react accordingly. In a situation where emergency vehicles are
unexpectedly in the middle of or on the side of the roadway immediate change is necessary on
the part of the driver in order to avoid a collision.
Driver perception of an accident, as well as their subsequent reaction is a very complex
issue. There are many factors that play a role in successfully navigating around or through an
accident scene. Issues such as age, sleep deprivation, expectancy, driving experience, disability
or incapacity, hazard perception, and reaction time, all influence the way in which accidents can
be avoided.
36
Discussion
Every day across the nation, America’s emergency responders and highway workers
leave and go off to serve the people. During their day they will be traveling down the network of
roadways. For some they will spend their entire time working along the road, for others, their
duty to respond will bring them out onto the roads in an emergency situation. Regardless of
reason, they all face a similar danger: becoming involved in an unwanted accident. Worse yet
would be the idea of causing an innocent motorist to fall victim to this very same thing. Both
emergency responders and roadway workers are reliant upon their safety and warning devices to
keep them safe while working along the roadway. But what happens when their safety devices
result in a situation that unwittingly places passing motorists at risk? This is the question
regarding LED emergency lighting specifically during nighttime and inclement weather.
According to a recent report put out by the United States Fire Administration, “The
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines an accident as an emergency road user
occurrence, a natural disaster, or other planned event that affects or impedes the normal flow of
traffic” (2013, p. 9). When these incidents occur, it is not only a result of a motor vehicle
collision. Fire apparatus and emergency vehicles could be responding to a vehicle fire, a ground
cover fire along a roadway, medical emergencies, or may simply be parked in or near lanes of
travel due to a nearby incident. In each instance, it is the fact that the normal or expected flow of
travel is being impeded that results in issues for passing motorists. “Violated expectancies lead
to longer reaction time, confusion, inappropriate responses, and errors” (Dilich, Kopernik, &
Goebelbecker, 2002).
In an effort to improve the safety of emergency responders, much attention has been paid
to warning devices such as sirens, lighting, and reflectivity. To this end, the question is one of a
37
vehicle’s conspicuity. Conspicuity, or being “obvious to the eye or mind” (Conspicuous, n.d.) is
of paramount importance when determining whether or not a warning device or measure is
effective. This issue is important, because research identified that passing motorists must not
only first see that something is impeding traffic, but they must also be able to comprehend
(Langham, Hole, Edwards, & O’Neil, 2002) the scene that is unfolding in front of them in order
to make a decision as to what vehicle maneuvers if any are necessary to safely navigate the
obstacle (Smith, Horswill, Chambers, & Wetton, 2009b; Gould, Poulter, Helman & Wann, 2009;
Borowski, Oron-Gilad, & Parmet, 2010). What begins as a seemingly simple issue of making a
vehicle more visible to warn motorists, quickly becomes a complex sequence of mental events as
a driver looks to interpret the scene.
Many different warning devices exist to aid motorists in this process of interpretation.
Perhaps among the most effective of those reviewed was in terms of vehicle marking.
Emergency vehicles do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there are many other vehicles with similar
issues. One of which was found to be the tractor-trailer or large truck. According to reviewed
sources, reflective striping was required to be added to these vehicles after December of 1993.
The result was a decline in other motorist collisions with these vehicles which had reflective
treatments (Flannagan & Sullivan, 2012).
In contrast to tractor-trailers, which have been required to have these markings for the
last twenty years, only more recently have fire and emergency apparatus followed suit. This
could be one of the main reasons that a driver may not be able to identify (Drucker et al. 2013)
an emergency vehicle when they are near. Only since 2008 have fire apparatus been required to
have both fifty percent of the rear of the vehicle outfitted with a chevron, but the side of the
vehicles must also be stripped along at least 50% of the body as well (Peters, 2008). In addition
38
to the apparatus being more conspicuous with reflective striping, apparatus occupants are now
compelled by federal mandate to wear ANSI 2007-2006 retroreflective vests while operating
along roadways in order to ensure that the visibility of members in all lighting conditions never
falls below an acceptable level (Flannagan & Devonshire, 2007).
Despite the many efforts at making sure that responders remain safe while operating on
the roadway, every year there continue to be more injured or killed while trying to render aid to
others. In an effort to stave off continued casualties, different colored, more and brighter lighting
has been added to vehicles in the name of responder safety. LED lights are some of the newest
lighting devices and now are in widespread use in many emergency vehicle fleets nationwide.
These bright intense lights allow for the identification of a hazard at a much longer distance
(Tunnicliff, 2005; Turner, Wylde, Langham, & Morrow, 2013) and are especially useful in
daylight conditions (USFA, 2013). These lights are so intense in fact that that since their usage
has become more popular, there has been an increase in the amount of research conducted on
them. Since this has been done, the new NFPA 1901 standards now call for two lighting modes,
one which is while the vehicle is in transit and all of the lights flash rapidly, and one for when
the vehicle is stationary in which fewer lights are used with slower flash patterns (USFA, 2004).
The newest report from the USFA even goes so far as to indicate that different intensity levels of
light should be used between daytime and nighttime operation (2013, p68; Flannagan, Blower, &
Devonshire, 2008). LEDs are an ideal source because they can provide “better automatic
controls for day and night operation” (Flannagan, Blower, & Devonshire, 2008).
Reviewed literature into LED lighting and emergency vehicle use yielded several
concerns including:
39
•
Confusion of other drivers
•
Traffic congestion in opposing lanes of traffic
•
An increased chance for secondary collision (USFA, 2013, p. 125)
All of these issues stem from a driver being distracted (NSC, 2012) while driving. In one case,
the driver is distracted because they are confused about the scene in front of them and are trying
to figure it out. In the second, drivers are passing the scene on the opposite side of the road and
pressing the brake as they look out the window ultimately causing a traffic back up. Ultimately,
either one of these can result in a secondary collision. Reviewed literature indicated that driver
distraction played a major role in many motor vehicle collisions (Stutts, Reinfurt, Staplin &
Rodgman, 2001). Distractions can be classified as either internal or external. Stutts, Reinfurt,
Staplin & Rodgman (2001) as well as Wallace (2003) agree that external distractions are a major
contributor to motor vehicle accidents.
It is the external distraction of motorists that is the focal point of this research. Simply,
when a motorist is trying to comprehend an emergency scene, do they become distracted in some
manner by LED lighting? One of the issues that arose during both review as well as research
was the issue of glare. The USFA outlined this as a specific problem because it was suggested
that lighting such as LED lighting could cause a level of glare that was in fact “disabling” (2013,
p.64) to passing motorists. Perhaps most importantly, the USFA report identified that in a glare
situation road hazards could be invisible due to blinding, a situation which is worse in rain
(Dingus et al., 2006) or with eyeglasses ( p. 67). Similar issues were found to be at the center of
four reviewed cases of fire-police officers over a 20-year period in which it was identified that
emergency vehicle lighting either “blinded or distracted the drivers” (Fahy, 2011).
40
Like with conspicuity markings, LED lighting is not only used on emergency vehicles.
Another use of LED lighting of specific interest for this research was the roadside digital
billboard. Since prior research indicated that glare and distraction could be an issue with regards
to emergency vehicle lighting, it should come as no surprise that this same issue has been studied
at great length for these signs as well. Digital billboards attract attention (Lee, McElheny, &
Gibbons, 2007; Henson, 2009) and not only that, they provide sufficient lighting intensity in
order to be more noticeable during daylight hours (p. 73). These signs exist on different levels
both high in the air and at street level. The signs at street level are of interest because they are
located roughly the same height above the ground (Crundall, Van Loon, & Underwood, 2006) as
many emergency vehicle lights. Further, these street level signs were found to draw more
attention than more elevated signs. Most importantly because of the extended gaze placed upon
these signs, research showed that “emergency maneuvers may be delayed, increasing the
likelihood of an accident” (p. 677). It should also be noted that another difference exists between
the raised and street level sign; reaction distance. Because of its nature the elevated sign is
visible from a greater distance, and thus drivers have longer to react, while the same cannot be
said for the street level sign (Henson, 2009) and conversely for emergency vehicle lighting.
When drivers are distracted by intense lighting such as that provided by LEDs, they fail
to recognize hazards. This factor is likely to “increase the likelihood of crash or near-crash
involvement” (Dingus et al., 2006). The reason is that the delay in hazard recognition results in a
slower reaction to the hazard. This time is imperative for collision avoidance because as
evidenced with the conversation about conspicuity, it is essential for a motorist to understand the
presence of a hazard in order to decide how best to avoid it (Smith, Horswill, Chambers, &
Wetton, 2009b). One element which could likely be an issue is that arrival time at the hazard
41
could be difficult to determine because a vehicle’s size, speed (Gould, Poulter, Helman & Wann,
2009), or exact motion may be difficult to determine in the presence of intense emergency
lighting.
Though it happens in mere moments, the decision of how to react to a hazardous traffic
situation is a complex one. Age, experience, and disability all play a factor. Younger or novice
drivers (Smith, Horswill, Chambers, & Wetton, 2009b; Pradhan, Simmons-Morton, Lee &
Klauer, 2011) are more likely to be involved in collisions. This is especially the case where any
distraction is involved or sleep deprivation is a factor (Smith et al., 2009b). In fact, the deadliest
hours on the nation’s roadways are from “midnight to 3 a.m.” (NHTSA, 2013). Younger drivers
are the most involved in accidents, account for the most property damage, account for most
injury and fatality (NHTSA, 2013), and are also the most easily distracted (Pradhan et al., 2011).
As a result of the fact that younger or novice drivers account for such a large amount of
collisions, these issues of distraction, hazard perception, and reaction time are difficult to ignore.
So what does all of this mean for the LED emergency light and their application as a
warning device on the nation’s roadway? Research into this issue is very difficult. The greatest
difficulty is the fact that data on the issue of LED lighting and secondary collisions is incomplete
or non-existent. Still, by looking at the NIOSH firefighter fatality reports, as well as the NHTSA
fatality data reporting for two separate five year periods, both before and after LEDs first showed
up in standard procedures?, did indicate a couple of trends. Prior review indicated that the LED
was highly efficient in daylight hours, more so than their predecessors, and at the same time
much more brilliant light at night, thus “eye catching”. As such, if LEDs were in fact
contributing to nighttime collisions, we should see a decrease in the number of daylight
42
collisions as a result of the improved effectiveness of the LED, and an increase in the number of
night time collisions.
The NHTSA review of the two periods indicated overall a reduction in the number of
work zone and emergency vehicle related fatalities, approximately 18% and 17% respectively.
Based upon the reports however, it was difficult to correlate time of day with the other variable
of emergency vehicle. NIOSH fatality reports were more difficult to analyze over the same
periods because only two reports were available for the period prior to 1999 that involved
vehicle collisions. Still, when looking at the data for the period from 2008 through the present,
there were twelve total fatalities, with seven occurring during presumably nighttime hours
(Figure 6).
Because the data was incomplete, both Internet and on-line news media sources were
polled for stories about on scene close calls, near misses, struck-by incidents, etc. Again an
attempt was made to acquire data from both time periods. A data set of 50 incidents was gleaned
from the more contemporary period, however like the NIOSH reports, the same was not possible
from the period pre-1999. This is presumably because of a lack of digitizing media in that era.
Still, what did show in the data was that of the incidents evaluated, 20 occurred during daylight
hours, and 30 occurred during the night.
Conclusions
The purpose of this research was to identify the existence or non-existence of a
relationship between the use of LED emergency vehicle lighting during nighttime hours and
inclement weather, and secondary traffic accidents or “close calls” as a result of driver
43
distraction. While attempts were made to answer this dilemma, incomplete data was the result.
No solid conclusion can be made one way or the other based solely upon retrieved data.
Anecdotally, the evidence reviewed does seem to indicate that conspicuity treatments
have worked when it comes to reducing collisions, as well as the number of workers who have
been struck. It also appears as though the number of daytime incidents has reduced as should be
expected with LED lighting. Also, nighttime incidents are now the most prevalent. Both could
be indicative of issues with the use of LED emergency lighting.
Regardless, prior research sponsored by the USFA as well as others has clearly indicated
a potential for LED emergency lighting to cause issues for passing motorists. This issue is
exacerbated by the intensity of these lights in dark conditions, as well as glare caused by
inclement weather conditions, eyeglasses, or even the windshield of a vehicle. Any of these
situations can cause motorists to become distracted during otherwise normal driving conditions.
Distracted drivers do not react promptly to a hazardous situation, and may in fact become a
hazard themselves and cause a secondary collision. Despite this knowledge, as well as the
ability of modern LED lighting to be automatically dimmed, standard making bodies such as the
NFPA, and advisory organizations such as the USFA fall short of making such technology a
requirement.
Future Recommendations
1. Add data elements for nationwide uniform crash reporting that are specific to emergency
vehicle involved crashes.
2. Researchers should continue to analyze the effects of LED emergency lighting and
establish an ideal standard for both day and nighttime roadway use.
44
3. While the ability to dim LED lights exists with modern lighting equipment,
manufacturers should look at an auto-dimming feature for emergency lights similar to
that in use in some digital billboards
45
References
Bendak, S., & Al-Saleh, K. (2008). The role of roadside advertising signs in distracting drivers.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 233-236.
Blanche, E.E. (1965). "The Roadside Distraction." Traffic Safety, 65(11), 24 - 25,
36 - 37.
Borowsky, A., Oron-Gilad, T. & Parmet, Y. (2010). The role of driving experience in hazard
perception and categorization: A traffic-scene paradigm. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology. 66. 305-309. Retrieved from
http://www.cee.uma.pt/ron/Borowsky%20et%20al%20%20The%20role%20of%20driving%20experience%20in%20hazard%20perception%20a
nd%20categorization%20-%20a%20traffic-scene%20paradigm.pdf
Conspicuous. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspicuous
Craford, M., Holonyak, N., and Kish Jr., F. (2001). "In Pursuit of the Ultimate Lamp." Scientific
American, 284, 62 - 67.
Crundall, D., Loon, E. V., & Underwood, G. (2006). Attraction and distraction of attention with
roadside advertisements. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 671-677. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7345881_Attraction_and_distraction_of_attentio
n_with_roadside_advertisements/file/d912f50caebf9f0e43.pdf
Crundall, D.E. and Underwood, G. (1998). "Effects of Experience and Processing Demands on
Visual Information Acquisition in Drivers." Ergonomics, 41(4), 448 - 458. Retrieved
46
from
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/dec/references/Ergonomics%20(1998)%2
0-%20novice%20drivers.pdf
Dilich, M., Kopernik, D., Goebelbecker, J. (2002). Evaluating driver response to a sudden
emergency: Issues of expectancy, emotional arousal and uncertainty. Society of
Automotive Engineers. 2002-01-0089. Retrieved from
http://www.triodyne.com/SAFETY~1/sb_V20N4.pdf
Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., et al. (2006). "The
100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment."
Report No. DOT HS 810 593. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.distraction.gov/research/pdf-files/the-100car-naturalistic-driving-study.pdf
Drucker, C., Gerberich, S. G., Manser, M. P., Alexander, B. H., Church, T. R., Ryan, A. D., et al.
(2012). Factors associated with civilian drivers involved in crashes with emergency
vehicles. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 55, 116-123.
Fahy, R. (2011). On-Duty Deaths of Fire Police Officers, 1991-2010. National Fire Protection
Association. Quincy, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.respondersafety.com/Download.aspx?DownloadId=43025bdc-45ad-43cd81c1-3078a427944c
Farber, E., Blanco, M., Foley, J., Curry, R., Greenberg, J.A., and Serafin, C.P. (2000). "Surrogate
Measures of Visual Demand While Driving." Ford Motor Company-Scientific Research
Laboratory. Dearborn, MI.
47
Federal Highway Administration (2009). "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)." Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part6/part6i.htm
Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association. (2009).” Fire apparatus improvement white paper
Report on application of new technology to modern fire apparatus”. Retrieved from
http://www.fama.org/filesDownload.cfm?fileName=TC005 - Apparatus Improvement
Whitepaper 080714.pdf
Flannagan, M. J., Blower, D.F., & Devonshire, J.M. (2008). Effects of warning lamp color and
intensity on driver vision. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Transportation
Research Institute
Flannagan, M. J., & Devonshire, J. M. (2007). Effects of warning lamps on pedestrian visibility
and driver behavior. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Transportation Research
Institute.
Flannagan, M. J., & Sullivan, J. M. (2012). Heavy trucks, conspicuity treatment, and the decline
of collision risk in darkness. Journal of Safety Research, 157-161.
Gould, M., Poulter, D., Helman, S., & Wann, J. (2013). Detection of vehicle approach in the
presence of additional motion and simulated observer motion at road junctions. Journal
of experimental psychology: applied, 19, 171-184.
Henson, S. (2009). Digital Billboard Safety Amongst Motorists in Los Angeles. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact
=8&ved=0CDgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdh101.humanities.ucla.edu%2FDH101Fal
48
l12Lab3%2Farchive%2Ffiles%2F4e66e5295f2ba2087ec3ec38153be8c7.pdf&ei=1pGkUv-J8SYqAany4LYDw&usg=AFQjCNHSVAA6VUcIh6x4lUoRzqaovJuPA&sig2=922KLViUQ6WpCr0QBjQD6Q&bvm=bv.69411363,d.
aWw
Klaur, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neal, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., & Ramsey, D. J. (2006). The impact of
driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic
driving study data. Report No. DOTHS810594. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=
0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2FDOT%2FNHTSA%2FNRD%
2FMultimedia%2FPDFs%2FCrash%2520Avoidance%2FDriver%2520Distraction%2F81
0594.pdf&ei=bssKU_-FAuOIyAGdu4HADg&usg=AFQjCNHxBHIU3K36mBqZcjOnWZpCFqeNA
Langham, M., Hole, G., Edwards, J., & O'neil, C. (2002). An analysis of 'looked but failed to see'
accidents involving parked police vehicles. Ergonomics, 45, 167-185.
Lee, S., & McElheny, M., Gibbons, R. (2007). Driving Performance and Digital Billboards
Final Report. Center for Automotive Safety Research. Virginia Tech. Retrieved from
http://www.signs.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lpJsDwbYvps%3D&tabid=768
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, (2013). NHTSA data confirms traffic fatalities increased in
2012 (NHTSA 32-13). Retrieved from website: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About
NHTSA/Press Releases/NHTSA Data Confirms Traffic Fatalities Increased In 2012
49
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. (2013). Death in the line of duty… (2013-06). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face201306.html
National Safety Council. (2012). Understanding the distracted brain why driving while using
hands-free cell phones is risky behavior [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Cognitive%20Distraction
%20White%20Paper.pdf
Peters, W. (2008). Changes to NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. Fire
Engineering.
Pradhan, A., Simons-Morton, B., Lee, S., & Klauer, S. (2011). Hazard perception and distraction
in novice drivers: Effects of 12 months driving experience. Proceedings of the sixth
international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and
vehicle design, 614-620. Retrieved from
http://drivingassessment.uiowa.edu/sites/default/files/DA2011/Papers/088_PradhanSimm
onsMorton.pdf
Sagberg, F., & Bjornskau, T. (2006). Hazard perception and driving experience among novice
drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 407-414. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact
=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrivingassessment.uiowa.edu%2Fs
ites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FDA2011%2FPapers%2F088_PradhanSimmonsMorton.pdf&
ei=pBalU7SmNcSzyASguIDYCQ&usg=AFQjCNGDxlBBdFzTxjkEjIzO5GW2zwiR5g
&sig2=jzPFBHIlKm9SVQjwu3MNdA
50
Smith, S., Horswill, M., Chambers, B., Wetton, M. (2009a). Hazard perception in novice and
experienced drivers: the effects of sleepiness. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/20409/1/c20409.pdf
Smith, S., Horswill, M., Chambers, B., Wetton, M. (2009b). Sleepiness and hazard perception
while driving. Road Safety Grant Report. No. 2009-001. Retrieved from
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RSRG_2009001.pdf
Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV (2008). Factsheet Advanced
Cruise Control (ACC). SWOV, Leidschendam, the Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/NL/Factsheet_ACC.pdf.
Stutts, J.C., Reinfurt, D.W., Staplin, L., and Rodgman, E.A. (2001). "The Role of Driver
Distraction in Traffic Crashes." Report Prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.safedriver.gr/data/84/distraction_aaa.pdf
Tantala, A., & Tantala, M. (2007). A Study of the Relationship Between Digital Billboards and
Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Tantala Associates. Retrieved from
http://www.signs.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pNUQ5yCVluo%3D&tabid=768
Trentacoste, M., & Solomon, G. (2009). The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable
Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction. U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HRT-09-018. 1-67. Retrieved
from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/cevms.htm
Tunnicliff, D. (2005). The safety and effectiveness of emergency vehicle lighting.
In Proceedings Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Sydney,
51
Australia.
Turner, S., Wylde, J., Langham, M., & Morrow, A. (2012) Determining optimum flash patterns
for emergency service vehicles: An experimental investigation using high definition film.
Applied Ergonomics. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
Underwood, G., Crundall, D., & Chapman, P. (2002). Selective searching while driving: the role
of experience in hazard detection and general surveillance. Ergonomics, 45(1), 1-12.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries News Release. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_08222013.htm
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(2013). Traffic Safety Facts 2012 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812032.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(2012). Traffic Safety Facts 2011 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811754AR.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(2011). Traffic Safety Facts 2010 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811659.pdf
52
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(2010). Traffic Safety Facts 2009 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811402.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(2009). Traffic Safety Facts 2008 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(1999). Traffic Safety Facts 1999 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809100.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(1998). Traffic Safety Facts 1998 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF1998.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(1997). Traffic Safety Facts 1997 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF1997.PDF
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(1996). Traffic Safety Facts 1996 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
53
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/96FARSRpt.pdf
U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(1995). Traffic Safety Facts 1995 A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Retrieved from
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF95%20Annual%20Report.pdf
United States Fire Administration. United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. (2004). Emergency vehicle safety initiative (FA-272).
Retrieved from website: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa272.pdf
United States Fire Administration. United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. (2013). Emergency vehicle safety initiative (FA-336)
Retrieved from website: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa336.pdf
United States Fire Administration. United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. (2014). Emergency vehicle safety initiative (FA-336)
Retrieved from website: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa336.pdf
54
Wallace, B. (2003). External-to-vehicle driver distraction. Research Findings No.168/2003.
Scottish Executive Social Research. Development Department Research Programme.
Retrieved from http://fordgreene.com/lit/sign/drf168.pdf
Young, M.S. and Mahfoud, J.M. (2007). "Driven to Distraction: Determining the Effects of
Roadside Advertising on Driver Attention." Final Report of a Study Funded by The Rees
Jeffreys Road Fund. West London: Brunel University.
55
Appendix
56
Appendix 1: Fatalities 1995-1999
1995 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996)
57
1996 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997)
58
1997 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998)
59
1998 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
`
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999)
60
1999 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000)
61
Appendix 2: Fatalities 2008-2012
2008 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009)
62
2009 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010)
63
2010 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011)
64
2011 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012)
65
2012 - Construction/Emergency Vehicle Incidents
(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013)
66
Appendix 3 – NIOSH Firefighter Fatalities
NIOSH Report #
Incident Time
Information
F2013-6
11:30
smoke obscured
F2013-5
22:29
struck at accident scene by car hauler
F2013-12
0:24
struck directing traffic
F2012-9
22:30
struck at incident scene
F2012-7
4:50
struck at accident scene by pickup truck
F2012-31
19:34
backing fire apparatus at brush fire
F2011-23
18:09
struck directing traffic
F2010-36
14:01
struck while working at grass fire along interstate
F2010-06
12:28
struck while performing traffic control duty
F2009-10
2:13
Back over
F2009-03
11:10
snow
F2008-17
4:33
struck at accident scene by tractor trailer
(http://www2a.cdc.gov/NIOSH-fire-fighter-face/state.asp?state=ALL&Incident_Year=ALL&Submit=Submit)
67
Appendix 4 – News and Internet report data
2008-Present
Date
News Source / Location
Day or Night
5/22/2014
My Fox, D.C.
Day
apparatus struck at scene
5/12/2014
The Tennessean, TN
Day
responder struck at scene
4/13/2014
Franklin Co, PA (Closecalls.com)
Day
Near Miss
2/28/2014
New Haven Register, NY
Day
responder struck at scene
2/12/2014
Crestwood, KY (Closecalls.com)
Day
10/30/2013
The Record, Bel Air, MD
Day
10/6/2013
Time Warner News Rochester, NY
Day
responder struck at scene
apparatus struck while
responding
8/12/2013
Pennsylvania (Closecalls.com)
Day
apparatus struck at scene
11/30/2011
The Decatur Daily, AL
Day
responder struck at scene
9/27/2011
Mineral Co., W.V. (Closecalls.com)
Day
11/18/2010
Daily Gazette, Sterling, Ill.
Day
Near Miss
apparatus struck while
responding
2/28/2010
(Closecalls.com)
Day
Near Miss
1/27/2010
Pioneer Press, MN
Day
responder struck at scene
10/29/2009
Pulaski County Dailey, MO
Day
apparatus struck at scene
2/9/2009
(Closecalls.com)
Day
apparatus struck at scene
12/1/2008
Greenville, TN
Day
responder struck at scene
8/11/2008
Balch Springs (Closecalls.com)
Day
apparatus struck at scene
3/31/2008
(Closecalls.com)
Day
Near Miss
3/11/2008
Columbia Borough (Closecalls.com)
Day
apparatus struck at scene
12/24/2007
Berkley County (Closecalls.com)
Day
apparatus struck at scene
6/5/2014
The Blade, OH
Night
responder struck at scene
5/11/2014
myfoxal.com, AL
Night
1/20/2014
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PA
Night
responder struck at scene
apparatus struck while
responding
12/17/2013
foxatlanta.com, GA
Night
responder struck at scene
3/8/2013
Bloomington, Ill
Night
responder struck at scene
8/27/2012
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, IA
Night
apparatus struck at scene
8/5/2012
Cumberland Co., PA (Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
7/11/2012
Florida (Closecalls.com)
Night
7/3/2012
Daily Press, Victorville, CA
Night
apparatus struck at scene
apparatus struck while
responding
5/7/2012
San Bernadio Sun, CA
Night
apparatus struck at scene
4/23/2012
South River (Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
4/15/2012
Huntersville, NC (Closecalls.com)
Night
responder struck at scene
10/6/2011
Carthagena (Closecalls.com)
Night
6/9/2011
Paradise Post, CA
Night
responder struck at scene
apparatus struck while
responding
68
Weather
Other
Information
ice
unknown
apparatus struck at scene
5/23/2011
The Shrewsbury Lantern, MA
Night
responder struck at scene
5/21/2011
Knox Co., TN (Closecalls.com)
Night
apparatus struck at scene
2/8/2011
(Closecalls.com)
Night
1/10/2011
(Closecalls.com)
Night
responder struck at scene
12/14/2010
Palatine, IL (Closecalls.com)
Night
apparatus struck at scene
1/28/2010
(Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
8/28/2009
Verona, NC
Night
5/25/2009
South Bend, IN (Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
3/23/2009
Maryland (Closecalls.com)
Night
apparatus struck at scene
3/17/2009
(Closecalls.com)
Night
5/28/2008
Gig Harbor, WA
Night
apparatus struck at scene
apparatus struck while
responding
2/29/2008
Lexington, MA
Night
1/25/2008
(Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
12/5/2007
(Closecalls.com)
Night
apparatus struck at scene
8/26/2007
Montgomery Co., MD (Closecalls.com)
Night
apparatus struck at scene
6/7/2007
(Closecalls.com)
Night
Near Miss
Fog/Smoke
Fog/Smoke
snow
apparatus struck at scene
responder struck at scene
apparatus struck at scene
1999 and Older
Weather
Other
Information
Date
News Source
Day or Night
12/10/1999
Clearwater, FL
Day
3/10/1998
Lionville, PA
Day
8/25/1997
Prince George Co, MD
Day
11/7/1996
New York, NY
Day
8/19/1993
Clayton County, GA
Day
responder struck at scene
9/28/1999
St. Petersburg Times, FL
Day
Apparatus struck while
responding
12/4/1994
SunSentinel, FL
Day
responder struck at scene
8/15/1996
Washington, D.C.
Night
responder struck at scene
8/15/1996
Washington, D.C.
Night
responder struck at scene
10/1/1999
Marietta, S.C.
Ambulance struck while
responding
Rain
responder struck at scene
Apparatus struck while
responding
Apparatus struck while
responding
responder struck at scene
69