Driving Safety

Driving Safety Interagency Driving Policy Guidance has been adopted by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). The NWCG will be issuing a revised policy on Driving Safety in the near future. The revised 2004 policy will be posted on this web page as soon as it is issued. Side Mirror Adjustments Driving safety videos available from the Missoula Technology and Development Center: "Focus on the Mission," "Backing Up on Forest Roads," and "Driving on Mountain Roads." Go to Reference Materials for more information.

Common Denominators of Serious Wildland Fire Related Vehicle Accidents
An Emphasis on the ATV

By Mark T. Bailey, ACTAR No: 1075

The firefighter’s use of the All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) is the focus of this year’s review due to numerous ATV injury accidents. The information is divided into three major areas:

• ATV’s vs. Passenger Vehicles

• Perception and Reaction in Off-Road Situations

• The Do’s and Don’ts of ATV Operation

Introduction

Last year I was contacted by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center and asked for my professional opinion as to the causation and/or trends of the serious vehicle accidents that occurred during calendar years 2002 and 2003. I was able to identify several common denominators that involved both human factors and vehicle characteristics in the majority of these accidents.

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, most of the prior common denominators that had earlier been identified once again raised their collective and troublesome heads in the review of the calendar year 2004 serious vehicle accidents. Perceptual errors combined with unusual vehicle characteristics were still clearly the main causations. Yet many of the resulting injuries and deaths could still have been prevented with the simple use of a seat belt. Rather than being redundant in this article, clicking on the following link: http://www.nifc.gov/safety_study/annual-refresh/hot_topics/common_denominators.html can fully access this report.

ATV’s vs. Passenger Vehicles

Whereas firefighter tenders and engines have different handling characteristics than regular automobiles, ATV’s also handle very differently. The ATV was created in Japan for the purpose of transporting farmers and agricultural workers from steep mountainous and rural lands to and from villages that at certain times of the year were otherwise inaccessible with conventional vehicles. In the early 1970’s, the Japanese realized the tremendous market potential in sending them to the United States as recreational vehicles. They have since become immensely popular, beyond just recreation. They are now used for farming, hunting, snow plowing, herding, seeding and a myriad of other uses where traditional vehicles can not perform.

As the number of ATV’s pouring into the country has risen, so has the number of deaths and injuries. In 1997 there were 241 deaths and 54,700 emergency room injuries attributed to ATV accidents. Five years later in 2002, that number increased to 357 deaths and a whopping 113,900 emergency room injuries. What makes these vehicles so dangerous, is that not only are there so many different handling characteristics from one ATV manufacturer to another, but handling characteristics can also vary sharply from one ATV to another of the same make and model. This can be due to many conditions including tire pressure, axle type, differential setting, terrain and optional equipment. A locked differential or solid drive axles, while providing great traction, makes turning both difficult and very dangerous.

While the majority of minor driving errors in automobiles usually result in no more than a fender-bender, with perhaps a bruised ego and a lighter wallet as the main casualties, a similar error while operating an ATV will often lead to the ejection of the occupant. Secondary to the ejection, it is not uncommon for the ATV to end up on top of the occupant. Possibly the most famous person to attest to this, may very well be the aging rocker Ozzy Osbourne. On December 8, 2003, while riding his ATV without a helmet, he hit a patch of uneven ground, flew over the handlebars, and was then run over by his ATV. His bodyguard who was following him, pulled the ATV off of an unconscious Ozzy’s chest, and allegedly had to resuscitate him twice. Ozzy was in a coma for eight days; broke his collarbone, eight ribs, a neck vertebra, and punctured a lung. In his first interview following the accident, Ozzy stated, “ I’ll never go near one of those damn bikes again”.

Perception and Reaction in Off-Road Situations

Whenever operating any type of vehicle, a driver’s response to a visual stimulus such as a traffic hazard takes time. Traffic Accident Reconstructionists refer to this response time as “perception/reaction time”. Perception and reaction is actually a four-step process. First the hazard must be detected in the visual field, and then the brain must process the information, followed by a decision of what to do and lastly executing that decision such as swerving or applying the brakes.

Many Accident Reconstruction schools use 2.5 seconds as a general rule of thumb for average perception/reaction times. However, most in-depth research suggests this figure to actually be on the low side of normal. Additionally, this time is increased depending on the complexity of the situation. Such complexities can include unexpected events (generally most of the time in emergency situations), lack of available light or contrast, lack of motion and physical conditions such as fatigue, impairment and age.

Much off-road driving involves hazards that deal with the potential of extended perception/reaction times. For example, even though an ATV operator should expect ruts or uneven areas of a trail, they are often difficult to see because they have no motion and little contrast. To complicate matters further, wearing a dusty mask or goggles will also impede the amount of available light to see with. Therefore, in my experience 3 seconds is a realistic number for off-road perception/reaction time instead of 2.5 seconds. A fair question that many readers are probably asking is, so what? After all, what’s a second or two among friends? The answer to these questions is that distance due to speed, namely reduced speed, can be used to avoid an accident.

When we talk about the speed of an object, we generally speak in the term of miles per hour (mph). Since accident sequences usually happen in seconds and feet, rather than hours and miles, it is easier to understand speeds effect on distance in feet per second (fps) than mph. The “magic” number for calculating mph into fps is to multiply mph by 1.466. The derivation of this is easy since there are 5280 feet in a mile and 3600 seconds in an hour. 5280 divided by 3600 equals 1.466. Therefore, a vehicle traveling at a rather mundane sounding 25 mph is actually moving at 36.65 feet per second (25x1.466=36.65). What this means in the real world can be explained as follows. At the point of possible perception of a hazard while traveling at 25 mph, using 3 seconds of perception/reaction time would mean that you would have traveled approximately 110 feet before any responsive action takes place (3x36.65=109.95). Add to this the distance necessary to stop an ATV traveling at 25 mph, which is about 42 feet, and you have traveled a total distance of approximately 152 feet.

As one can imagine, there could be plenty of hazardous trail way in a 152-foot span. Reducing the ATV’s speed just 8 mph to 17 mph decreases the total stopping distance to just 94 feet. Therefore, the slower the speed, the better chance you will have of avoiding a hazardous situation, not to mention maintaining better control of the ATV.

The Do’s and Don’ts of ATV Operation

Conclusion

ATV’s now play such an important part of American life in so many areas, not only in both recreational and commercial industry, but also now in the wildland firefighting community. People who depend on them and couldn’t imagine life without them include the physically handicapped, numerous workers on farms, ranches, nurseries etc., and many others in mountainous and rural settings. They are also perceived as very useful in many aspects of natural resource management involving prescribed fire, wildland fire use and suppression activities. They may indeed be a very valuable, unique and in many cases irreplaceable piece of equipment.

The newer ATV’s tend to be easier and safer to operate due to design improvements. However, along with these design improvements come bigger and more powerful engines that change the handling characteristics.

ATV’s, no matter how much fun they are to ride, are not toys, and as the statistics show, can be very dangerous. As long as firefighters realize their own and the machine’s limitations, always maintain a safe speed, and continuously monitor changes in the situation, an ATV can be operated in a safe and efficient manner.

Mark T. Bailey is a Certified and Accredited Traffic Accident Reconstructionist. He operates his own Collision Consulting practice and has among his credentials over 20 years experience with the largest U.S. Government Fleet Operators.