Fixing Something No One Wants to Talk About

There are problems in the connected car market that everyone wants to solve and for which multiple startups have a solution and then there are challenges that no one wants to talk about or acknowledge, even if lives are at risk. How do we, as an industry, respond to car crashes.

Larry Burns, one-time corporate vice president of research and development at General Motors and current consultant to a number of startups and established automotive technology companies, recently told Autoline Afterhours about the moment he suggested that GM work on cars that don't crash. He was told unequivocally by the company's general counsel to never mention that idea again, as he'd likely find himself testifying before Congress and in courts for the rest of his life.

It's true. The automotive industry is uniquely given a pass for the routine failure of its products - cars - to avoid collisions. In fact, the industry has been implicated in a more or less coordinated campaign to blame drivers/consumers for the infamous 94% of crashes - a figure that has been widely debunked as misinformation.

The net result has been an industry blind spot for taking on the topic of crash response and after crash care. While the European Union saw the need for a timely crash response solution and mandated eCall beginning in 2018 in all new type approved vehicles, the U.S. opted to ignore this initiative.

For the E.U. to deliver on the promise of automatic notification and response to car crashes required the cooperation of wireless carriers, car companies, and thousands of public service access points (PSAPs). Devices needed to be built into cars. Wireless carriers needed to provide prioritized transmission of the emergency messages - which combined a so-called 140-character minimum set of data (MSD) with in-band modem data-over-voice technology. And thousands of PSAPs needed to be outfitted to receive in-band modem transmissions.

A similar endeavor in the U.S. is almost unthinkable. There is no centralized regulatory authority over the PSAP eco-system in the U.S., even if car makers and wireless carriers could be persuaded to support an equivalent eCall mandate.

The barriers to evolving and advancing crash response technology in the U.S. are both subtle and severe. For auto makers the mere topic of crash response is a third rail, as Larry Burns has described. Crash response equals liability, which is enough to end any conversation.

The issues, though, are real. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration captures the issues clearly in a clever graphic which describes how 911 calls result in 1.5M emergency dispatches to crash scenes where more than 40,000 people die. Forty percent of those crash victims were alive at the moment of emergency response. NHTSA further notes that 8,000 cases include victims partially or completely ejected from the vehicle; more than 48,000 victims require extrication; more than 160,000 seriously injured victims are attended to.

NHTSA graphic: https://www.ems.gov/assets/NRSS-Post-Crash-Care-Infographic_FINAL.pdf

Despite these horrific numbers, automatic crash response "lacks a constituency" - in the words of one commenter at a Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance meeting last year. There is a bizarre combination of auto makers avoiding the topic and consumers content that they will either never be in a crash or that they will be conscious post-crash and able to call for assistance on their mobile phone.

There is a new sheriff in town, though, and changes are afoot. That change is apparent in two upcoming events, both taking place next week:

Post-Crash Care Summit - Virtual Event - Register Here: https://na.eventscloud.com/ehome/804893/1245616/ - Put on by the Federal Inter-Agency Committe on EMS and the Governors Highway Safety Association

and

Roundtable: Next-Generation 9-1-1 Automotive OEMS - https://www.cargroup.org/mbs/agenda24/ - Taking place at the Management Briefing Seminar put on by the Center for Automotive Research

NHTSA has made it clear that it is taking on the challenge in spite of its limited authority and industry-wide ennui regarding taking on the challenges inherent in crash response. From NHTSA's perspective it is clear that better information is required both in real time and in after-action analysis to refine crash response protocols and algorithms.

Multiple industry representatives are arguing for direct communication of vehicle data to first responders to accelerate the delivery of care and improve the quality and amount of data being collected at the moment of greatest need. In fact, many are arguing for a de-emphasis on OnStar-style call centers that relay crash data to first responders, or, more to the point, an enhancement that might involve a parallel transmission of vehicle data simultaneously to the call center AND the relevant PSAP. The over-riding objective of advanced next-gen crash response is increasingly to communicate information directly.

The best news of all is that these conversations are finally happening. It is good and well that NHTSA has found its voice and its place in driving this innovation. All that remains is for the car companies to listen, learn, follow, and implement change.