Culture of Life
- Posted by ryan on December 11th, 2008 filed in In the News
Get this:
The number of people killed in traffic crashes in the U.S. this year is expected to be the lowest on record, federal transportation officials said Thursday. Early projections show traffic deaths for the first 10 months of 2008 are down about 10 percent compared with the same period last year. Estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that 31,110 people died on the nation’s roads from January through October, compared with 34,502 during the same period in 2007.
Ordinarily, we’d probably consider it worthwhile to prevent the deaths of 3,000 or so people; certainly we were willing to do all kinds of horrible things to try and forestall another attack like that of September 11. So what’s behind all this? Transportation secretary Mary Peters wants credit:
“Our focus on safety — from our highways, railways, seaways and airways — has led to one of the safest periods in our nation’s transportation history…”
Call me crazy, but I suspect there might be some connection between reduced fatalities and reduced driving. For the year to date, Americans have driven an estimated 3.5% fewer vehicle miles than they did in the same period in 2007. Now it is true that the fatality rate has fallen, but that might also have something to do with the root cause of the decline in VMT — higher gas prices. Drivers reportedly drove slower (truckers especially) to save gas money. The average size of the vehicle fleet probably shrank as well, as people sold bigger trucks and SUVs, or simply drove them less.
High gas prices were painful for consumers this year, but that’s because we weren’t very well prepared for them. Our vehicles were large, our city structures sprawling, and our ability to substitute to transit or walking or biking limited. But if we improve those alternatives, then it becomes easier and more painless to tax things like VMT and emissions (or gasoline) which would reduce highway fatalities and injuries.
And of course, if saving thousands of lives isn’t the kind of thing that concerns you, well, such measures would also save billions of dollars, and reduce emissions, and improve air quality and public health, and so on and so forth.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
In addition to the theory that high prices led to slower driving, perhaps fewer cars on the road (given that every year there are more roads but this year fewer drivers on them) had an exponential effect on traffic fatalities? In other words, I believe the percentage of fatalities avoided to percent of VMT reduction is much greater than a 1:1 ratio.
And another thing, if 3,000 people died in subway accidents, they’d outlaw subways. When 3,000 is the number of traffic fatality REDUCTIONS, they anoint them as “safe”.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Here’s a very simplified analysis - but less oversimplified than the assumption that the number of fatalities should go down in direct proportion to miles driven.
Most fatalities result from collisions of two vehicles. The chance of two vehicles being present at the same place at the same time is proportional to the square of the number of vehicles on the road. Thus (for small changes) the percentage change in collisions should be double the percentage change in miles driven. A drop of 3.5% in miles driven is predicted to yield a drop of 7% in collisions.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It’s not just VMT but lower average speeds, presumably, as speed is frequently* a contributing cause particularly to fatal accidents. Higher gas prices lead both to fewer miles driven and lower speeds, so presumably higher gas prices are the dominant reason for the reduction in fatalities.
*In the USA, the factor attributed to the greatest number of fatal crashes in 2003 was “failure to keep in proper lane or running off road”, being reported in over 32% of fatal accidents. “Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit or racing” was next, reported as being a factor in over 20% of fatal accidents. )
December 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
There’s also an outside possibility that the people who really needed to cut down on gas consumption for economic reasons were the same people who had poorly maintained cars with bare tires, faulty brakes etc., leaving the better maintained cars on the road.
I personally thought high gas prices were a good thing. It’s a pity that they weren’t replaced with a tax to keep them at the same high level when the underlying cost came down.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“The chance of two vehicles being present at the same place at the same time is proportional to the square of the number of vehicles on the road.”
Yes, but the reduction in traveled miles doesn’t necessarily mean reduced number of cars on the road at a given moment if it’s accompanied by a reduction in speed. If we’re driving 3.5% fewer miles but driving 3.5% less quickly (and I’m not saying that’s the right number, but it’s probably within range), then there’s the same number of cars on the road at any given time, since each car is on the road longer to go that distance.