Google’s driverless car technology uses sensors and cameras to detect the physical form of the road, read signs and watch for vehicles and pedestrians. The car uses the data to adjust speed and steering and apply the brakes.

Sebastian Thrun, Google’s lead developer of its driverless car technology, has made the claim that the system will one day be able to reduce traffic accidents by 90 percent. In 2009, there were approximately 5.5 million car accidents in the United States, with 9.5 million vehicles involved. There were 33,808 traffic deaths and 2.2 million people were injured, with 240,000 requiring hospitalization.

The financial cost of traffic accidents is enormous as well. The American Automobile Association (AAA) studied data from automobile crashes in the 99 largest urban areas in the country and arrived at a cost estimate of $299.5 billion. Extrapolating from AAA’s figures, it is estimated that the nationwide cost is about $450 billion. This includes damage to property, productivity loss, medical costs, and lowered quality of life.

Google’s bold claim is that its technology can save nearly 30,000 lives per year in the United States, prevent almost 2 million injuries and reduce costs from traffic accidents by $400 billion per year. The claim may seem extravagant, but it is based in the simple reality that nearly all traffic accidents are caused by human error. Machines do fail, but not nearly as often as humans do.

On a global scale, the potential impact on traffic safety would be even greater. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are approximately 1.2 million traffic deaths in the world each year, and nearly 50 million injuries. The problem is expected to get worse. By 2030, the WHO estimates that traffic accidents will be the fifth leading cause of death in the world, or 3.6 percent of total deaths. This would be a startling increase from 2004, when auto collisions were the ninth leading cause of deaths in the world, at 2.2 percent of the total.

The driverless car concept has implications beyond safety as well. Google claims that its technology can also reduce wasted time during commutes by allowing cars to drive faster and closer together, relieving traffic jams. According to one study, traffic jams waste 1.9 billion gallons of gas and 4.8 billion hours of drivers’ time each year. In monetary terms, that amounts to $101 billion in gasoline costs and loss of productivity.

In addition, driverless cars could theoretically reduce the number of cars needed in a community, as sharing of vehicles would become more efficient. After all, most people only use their vehicle at certain times during the day, leaving most cars unused about 95 percent of the time. The technology could have a positive impact on reducing pollution, and developing countries may be able to reduce vehicle-intensive development if fewer cars are needed.

Bob Briskman is a car accident lawyer and Chicago car accident attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call  1.877.595.4878  or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently issued a recommendation that the federal government require auto manufacturers to include the latest crash-avoidance technologies as standard equipment on all new automobiles, saying such a policy could cut in half the rate of fatal crashes on American roads.

The recommended technologies include collision detection systems, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning systems, and electronic stability control. Each feature is already available on some cars and trucks, but some are limited mainly to luxury vehicles. The NTSB said they should be mandated on all vehicles, despite concerns from auto industry representatives about the effect such a requirement would have on the cost of new cars.

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should establish performance standards where still needed and mandate that these technologies be included as standard equipment in cars and commercial motor vehicles alike,” the NTSB said in a statement. “Their full life-saving and crash-avoidance potential will not be realized until supported by federal rule making and related standards.”

Electronic stability control selectively applies braking power to individual wheels when other wheels lose traction. Federal law already requires it in new passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds.

Lane departure warning systems monitor the car’s position on the road. When the car drifts out of its lane without signaling, the system responds with audible and visible warnings.

Forward collision detection, automatic braking, and adaptive cruise control are interrelated. Sensors in the front of a vehicle detect the proximity of cars, people, and other objects in the vehicle’s path. Adaptive cruise control enables the car to automatically apply at least a portion of available braking power when traffic ahead slows and return to the set speed when traffic speeds up. Collision detection alerts the driver when the car is approaching something too quickly. Automatic braking allows the car to autonomously apply as much braking power as possible to avoid a collision with whatever lies in its path.

The NTSB also recommended mandates for tire-pressure monitoring systems and, for commercial trucks, speed-limiting systems.

Automakers are wary of the costs that would be added to all new vehicles should such safety features be mandated. Collision warning systems without automatic braking cost $1,000 to $3,000 per vehicle, according to government estimates, and those that include automatic braking cost about $3,500.

“In this still-fragile economy, maintaining affordability of new vehicles remains a concern,” said Gloria Vergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Today, the average price of a new vehicle is $30,000, more than half the median income in the U.S.”

But safety advocates pointed out that the per-vehicle cost of these safety features would decline if they were standard equipment on all cars.

Robert Briskman is a Chicago car accident lawyer and Chicago car accident attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

Federal authorities filed suit against Dr. Michael J. Reinstein, a Chicago psychiatrist, on November 15, alleging that in exchange for kickbacks from drug companies, he prescribed a potentially dangerous psychotropic drug to thousands of Chicago-area nursing home patients with mental illnesses.

In a statement, acting U.S. Attorney Gary Shapiro said the lawsuit is “the largest civil case alleging prescription medication fraud against an individual ever brought in Chicago.”

In a 2009 joint investigation, the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica found that Reinstein relied very heavily on clozapine, a risky and powerful psychotropic drug. In 2007, Reinstein prescribed the medicine more than all the doctors in Texas combined, according to the investigation.

The lawsuit, filed recently in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleges that Reinstein made no less than 140,000 false Medicare and Medicaid claims for antipsychotic drugs he had prescribed based on kickbacks from the manufacturers of the drugs, without regard to his patients’ needs.

Authorities further allege that he submitted at least 50,000 Medicare and Medicaid claims falsely stating that he had monitored his patients at Chicago-area nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Authorities are seeking triple damages under the False Claims Act, in addition to civil penalties for every alleged false claim. The total damages could quickly reach seven or even eight figures.

Novartis, the maker of Clozaril, a brand name for clozapine, had a longstanding agreement with Reinstein to pay him to promote the drug, according to authorities.

The lawsuit described Clozaril as a “drug of last resort” and claims that despite this fact Reinstein routinely had thousands of patients taking clozapine at any given time.

In 1998, the patent on Clozaril expired, and generic versions of clozapine hit the market. But Reinstein “resisted pharmacy and drug company efforts to switch his patients to generic clozapine and continued to be the largest prescriber of Novartis’s Clozaril to Medicaid recipients in the United States,” according to the lawsuit.

In the summer of 2003, Novartis stopped paying Reinstein to promote Clozaril. At that time, Florida-based IVAX Pharmaceuticals Inc. tried to persuade Reinstein to switch to the firm’s generic form of clozapine.

Reinstein agreed, and for the next several years, IVAX paid him $50,000 per year under a “consulting agreement,” the suit alleged.

“After reaching this kickback agreement with IVAX, Reinstein immediately began switching his patients from Clozaril to IVAX’s clozapine,” the suit said. He soon became “the largest prescriber of generic clozapine in the United States.”

The lawsuit alleged that IVAX and its eventual parent company, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, paid for at least three trips to Miami for Reinstein and several associates, including hotel, airfare, cruises, and dinners.

After the 2009 publication of the Tribune-ProPublica investigation into Reinstein, he told Teva to stop paying him, the suit says.

A spokeswoman for Teva released a statement saying the company was cooperating with investigators.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer and Chicago medical malpractice attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.