According to global statistics, over 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human error. However, limiting ourselves to this repeated assertion as a standard is to try to take a course that is not necessarily the correct or the best.

Every accident is unique and involves a number of variables (the errors are circumstantial and may occur at different times and vehicles in various fields, etc.). The research process can be facilitated and obtain valid conclusions if we compare an accident with other similar events (statistics).

We will summarize the traffic accident investigation, the multiple steps to find or discover the causes that provoked it. While there may be several reasons for the investigation, in our case we are dealing only get to learn of the accident to avoid its repetition.

The investigation not only involves finding the causes that generated or contributed to it, it is also necessary to allow rank-ordering so that they can manage the corrective actions for each of them. This arrangement is a logical direction for both time economy and resources.

As a methodology of work, we adopt the premise established by the American researcher William Haddon (1978), who divides the accident in three stages:

 Pre-Accident: At this stage we will analyze all actions, facts, events and circumstances prior to the event, here is contained all aimed at preventing an accident. We define the beginning of this stage, which may be from the trip in question or going back in time into an analysis that traces the origins of the training received by the driver.

 Accident: Time elapsed since active safety systems start acting and passive safety (*) until he or the vehicles are stopped in their final positions. Intelligent Management sets the beginning of the accident reflexively, that physiology is defined as an action that makes a person independently of his will. Thus, we consider those facts accident where the driver loses control when acting reflexively, whether the same is not produced or damage to persons or property.

 Post-Accident: Study the actions, facts, events and subsequent circumstances, such as, care for wounded, contingency plans, etc.

In this method’s logic, the ideas and the sequence of events manifest and develop consistent, with no contradictions between them.

With this basic system we propose to investigate the accident, guiding our work in the first phase or how the incident could be prevented.

What did we learn?

Driving Consultancy invites you to answer this quiz by e-mail to info@drivingconsultancy.com. In coming issues we will discuss the results.

A new driver in the area, rested little because at this time of year there is a lot of work. The next morning, driving at excessive speed of the 4x4 company truck, he loses control (he thinks he fell asleep) and gets out of the road, zigzags along the shoulder, manoeuvres roughly to get back to the route and eventually overturns. There were minor injuries because he had no seat belt and one of the front tires can be seen as deflated.

Possible answers:

The driver:
 was not wearing a seat belt
 was inexperienced in the area
 was speeding
 he shouldn’t have manoeuvred to return to the road
 the front tire burst
 he must not have driven if he was tired

1. Arrange the elements. 2. Which do you think has been the root cause? 3. Name at least two corrective actions. 4. Would you penalize the driver to exemplify?

(*) Active Safety. Security features of a vehicle designed to avoid an accident, (brakes, steering, lights, etc.). Passive Safety. Security features of a vehicle designed to protect the physical safety of occupants and minimize the most of their injuries in an accident.