Sometimes you can learn a great deal about home by reading news from a world away. As I write the following, I could not get Douglas Adams out of my head. He is credited with the truism:
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
That one has gotten a fair bit of travel over the years, and I have seen many varieties on the theme (the replacement of "fool" with "idiot" is common in some parts of the country, which may say more about them than it does about the fools). There is some tendency, or at least a possibility, for people to go where they should not. The world is a potentially dangerous place, with a variety of challenges confronting us persistently. I thought of that last summer when an article came up on my news feed about 23-year-old Philip Carroll visiting mount Vesuvius in Italy. This is a famous volcano that is credited with destroying Pompei centuries ago.
Vesuvius is an active volcano, and Mr. Carroll reportedly ignored restrictions, and "took a trail . . . closed to tourists." Ignoring "a small gate" and "no access signs," he "boldly went where no man" (Star Trek, 1966) was supposed to go. He reportedly took a selfie, dropped his phone into the crater, and then "tried to recover it." The end result was an American tourist "stuck" in a volcano and injured. The story seemingly screamed "Safety," and might serve as a lesson in appreciating danger, following directions, and self-preservation.
Why do people go where they are not supposed to? Why do people ignore warnings? What compels us, persuades us, allows us? It is intriguing, and way too many work injuries occur every year as a result of failure to heed and follow such instructions, restrictions, and warnings. A wayward tourist from around the world made me think about that.
I was intrigued therefore to learn that right here in Florida there is an effort to engage technology in an innovative manner. It took a story from a Virginia television station, also arguably a world away, to make me aware of this. It is "the most sophisticated wrong-way detection system of its kind in the U.S." and is deployed in Orlando. Car accidents are a significant cause of death. Forbes reports that 46,000 Americans die in accidents each year. Striving to decrease that number is a significant part of the purchase price of each automobile (seatbelts, airbags, cameras, warning systems, and more).
Florida is the nation's third-most-populous state. It is not surprising that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports that only Texas and California report more vehicle death tolls than Florida. And, according to Patch, a notable volume of accidents are "wrong-way" collisions. It reports that an average of 500 deaths occur each year from these people going where they should not. That rate is reportedly on the rise, which is itself troubling. WSLS 10 (Roanoke, Virginia) reports "most wrong-way driving happens at night because a driver is drunk or tired or confused or . . . suicidal."
But, in Orlando there are "creative people . . . working to make the world a better place, one solution at a time." NBC10 reports that Orlando "has a dangerous track record of wrong-way driving." Inspired by these accidents, the Central Florida Expressway Authority teamed with the University of Central Florida to examine the challenges and threats of such accidents, and invented "one of the best and most-advanced wrong-way detection systems in the entire country." They imagined, innovated, and improved.
Their solution included some reasonably simple components. One was "wrong-way signs outlined with obnoxiously bright LED lights" that "flash when detecting a wrong-way driver." "Perhaps that American tourist in Italy would have benefitted from signs telling him to read the signs that said do not enter? Or, perhaps the flashing lights and signs are merely a good start? Despite them, potentially some "fool" would nonetheless utter the immortal "hold my cell phone, watch this?" Absolute safety is perhaps immutably elusive? "But wait, there's more."
The Orlando system is more than signs and flashing lights. Motion sensors that initiate the flashing lights also activate cameras and notify the "traffic management system and state troopers’ cellphones." This is perhaps the one instance in which I will readily agree it is OK to look at a cell phone while driving (police only, please). The "overhead digital signs" on the highway then "warn wrong-way drivers to turn around" and "warn innocent drivers about what lies ahead." This is thus both passive - signs, warnings, lights, and active - troopers. As an aside, there is some good advice here if you find yourself warned of a wrong-way driver (road sign) or confronted with one.
This sounds reasonably sophisticated, but the Authority notes it was "not terribly expensive.” The entire process involves about "65 detection systems throughout and was deployed at an overall cost of about $5 million. Effective? Since deployment, the system has detected "1,200 wrong-way driving events." The result? "Over 1,000 of those resulted in turnarounds." One cannot say with any certainty that each of those would have otherwise resulted in an accident or a fatality, but it seems fair to credit that success rate (87%) with saving some lives. Calls to 911 about such drivers have dropped 66%.
It is inspiring to see that technology can have a positive impact on safety. One may wish it were "foolproof," but not as yet. The process will likely follow an arc similar to that of other innovations, with early adopters footing the bill for innovation and implementation. While the Orlando system was notably inexpensive, such systems will undoubtedly become cheaper still to replicate elsewhere. With repetition will come diminishing costs, and likely further innovation and improvement.
This technology has the potential to remedy a great many threats. These are more likely the "tired or confused" drivers. Perhaps there is hope for it to help somewhat even with the drunk or otherwise impaired driver. Perhaps not. And, the "suicidal" driver, the intentional wrong-way, will not likely be affected at all. The WSLS story notes that those instances when "turn around" does not occur then become a challenge for police, and a significant threat to oncoming traffic.
Despite that shortcoming, the story reinforces that 87% of alerts result in turn arounds. Similarly, from the absence of news reports, we might conclude that the signs and gates on Mount Vesuvious work well with the majority of self-preservation-focused volcano visitors?
But, the goal of 100% wrong-way prevention from such technology is predicted "to require systems like this that are continuously upgraded and implemented throughout all interchanges.” And with that, more cameras, more monitoring, and likely more who will perceive threats to civil liberties. See Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020). It will be interesting to see whether such concerns are voiced, and what accommodations occur. Much of our measure of individual rights we find balanced against the rights of others, the powers of government, and societal norms. I always pity those whose personal constructs and perceptions include absolutisms regarding either government power or rights and these inevitable conflicts).
The day will not likely come when all interchanges are equipped with such technology, but then I predicted in the 1970s that airbags would never expand beyond the luxury car market (for the record, you heard it here "I was wrong"). Perhaps such cameras, lights, and more will eventually come to rural America one day as airbags have come to the most basic automobiles. But, in the meantime, this innovation seems immediately ripe for the bustle and congestion of urban America.
