More Silly Numbers From AAA
By James Baxter, NMA President
A little background: The AAA was once known as the American Automobile Association. In the first half of the 20th century it was the pre-eminent spokesman and advocate of American motorists.
The American Automobile Association championed more and better roads, rational traffic laws and fair enforcement. It even identified and campaigned against speed traps. Not remembered by many; it was the principle sanctioning body for auto races.
By the 1960’s the American Automobile Association was well into its transition from motorist advocate to insurance company.
The association had a long history with roadside assistance, a type of insurance, but not until the 60’s and 70’s did the insurance function begin to dominate its priorities. The insurance role evolved to total control in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Eventually the facade of being a motorist advocacy organization collapsed and the name was changed to “AAA,” the letters meaning whatever the observer assumed them to mean. In the era when AAA was championing the 55 MPH speed limit (like all other insurance companies) the interpretations were not complimentary.
That, abruptly, brings us to the AAA press release that hit the media yesterday. I should add, there are still a fair number of reporters and other media mavens that have not caught on to the fact that the AAA is not the American Automobile Association of old.
The press release claims that auto accidents are costing we naïve citizens a lot more money than is traffic congestion and yet the government seems much more focused on traffic congestion than it is on traffic safety. This is one of those instances where because they said it, it must be true.
In reality, it’s unvarnished nonsense.
First, the claim that auto accidents are costing society more money than congestion is based on “funny money” assumptions, made up costs, and “apples and oranges” comparisons.
Assumptions on the value of one person’s life, work place losses, and monetizing “quality of life” or “pain and suffering” are futile subjective exercises intended to prove a point, not to shed light.
Yes, there are 43,000 annual traffic related fatalities, but why not mention that the fatality rate, a more meaningful statistic, has dropped like a stone over the past three decades?
Simple. Positive news doesn’t support the insurance industry’s agenda.
Assuming that 75 percent of the population lives in urban/suburban/developed regions means that 225 million people, including 150 million drivers deal with some level of congestion on a daily basis. If it costs each person an hour each work day that’s 58 billion man hours lost to congestion. OK, only a half hour; 29 billion man hours a year. At $7 per hour that’s $203 billion dollars a year and we haven’t even started with “quality of life” or workplace losses.
If these seem like silly numbers to you I’d argue that they aren’t any sillier than saying every life lost in an auto accident cost $3,249,192.00 (they apparently rounded off the cents).
Barbara Harsha, Exec. Dir. of the Governors Highway Safety Association unintentionally stated a fact; “Traffic Accidents happen in ones and twos, and people see them as random events that don’t effect them.” Actually “the people” have it about right. For most of them, traffic accidents are random events that do not affect them in a significant manner if they are not directly involved in the accident, which is usually the case. Yes, there are auto insurance rates, but those rates largely track inflation and are driven by administrative costs and property damage claims.
Besides, when is the last time you heard about an auto insurance company being unprofitable?
Congestion is not a random event; motorists confront it almost every day they travel. It costs them time, makes them late, aggravates and irritates (probably causes plenty of heart attacks and strokes), increases fuel consumption, emissions, and vehicle wear and tear, and it causes accidents. It stands to reason that funds garnered by taxing motorists should be used to improve roadways and lessen congestion.
Suggesting that safety has been shorted resources or given a low priority is sheer political nonsense.
No single government action has done more to improve highway safety than the construction and the expansion of the Interstate System. Without these and similar limited access divided highways we would experience twice as many fatalities, if not more, than we do today.
The vast preponderance of traffic accidents are not caused by speeding, impairment, senior drivers, or being young. They are caused by distraction, inattention, and fatigue.
Passing more laws, heaping on more penalties, or hiring platoons of cops will not address these factors.
If the resources that are wasted on speed traps, ticket cameras, roadblocks, enforcement binges, and propaganda, like this study, were invested in real research, programs, and projects that addressed the real causes of most traffic accidents we might just be able to make progress toward safer AND less congested highways.
Jeff are you saying there are no accidents if someone is going 90 mph? What percentage of trucks and other vehicles do not drive at 85 or 90 mph? You will always have someone on this site that would be traveling 10 mph or more faster than everyone else.
I am sure you and James Baxter does not realize that 43,000 dead people a year would add up to over 40 miles of dead bodies if lined up head to toe. That is also the equivalent of a small city. That means absolutly nothing to James Baxter and most here.
How do you hit someone on the freeway travelling in the same direction as yourself? If you are not paying attention, then YOU should be punished accordingly.
Highway show me facts where it makes no difference if we have security at airports as far as safety, where hitting someone at 90 mph is just as safe as 65 mph, where every policeman is corrupt and only out for himself, where BAC of .15 and larger is very safe, where seatbelts and airbags and other safety measures in cars should be removed because a few hundred or thousand more deaths is no big deal.
The US also does not require a Rear Fog Light (Standard on European cars since the 80′s) and Convex Driver’s Side Mirrors are prohibited (A simple solution to the “Blind Spot” problem on American cars).
Todd, randy *supports* nannyism. It’s his entire gambit:
“I know what’s best for everyone, so everyone should act they way I say they should act.”
And if you try to actually show him facts, he moves the goalposts… again.
Like his respewing the crap about ‘this site wants speed limits at 80 mph or more unless it’s a school zone.’ That he thinks this is a goal of this site is proof of his unreasonableness.
Todd if you read the supported articles and comments by the members you would see where you are wrong about what is actually supported by this organization. James Baxter himself says that lives are worth very little. He feels that if it means a few thousand lives to have a little bit less convenience it is worth it. He and others on this site say that it is all about freedon but it is more about not being incovenienced and let me drive my 400 hp car as fast as I like.
Todd, your wasting your breeeeeath, I mean uh, ink. It’s Randys’ way or the highway. Take it or leave it, no compromise. He’s right, your wrong, case closed. Kinda like the traffic cops. And he wonders why no one believes him.
To Randy
1)Reasonable Speed Limits, this means that speed limits should be Reasonable & Prudent that takes safety and travel efficiency into the equation.
2)Safe Roads & Intersections, meaning to be free from UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE police enforcement. This does not mean that laws should not be enforce. The NMA does support laws and enforcement just as long as it is fair and reasonable based on facts.
3)Rational drunk driving laws, go to the NMA issues and click on DUI/DWI and under Basic Tenets it says the NMA’s position. For #2 the NMA says “We support those legislative and enforcement initiatives that are effective in achieving stated goals of deterrence and removal of impaired drivers. We do not support initiatives based on revenge, political expedience, or emotional hyperbole” and anotheir one is “The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving. The NMA supports constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respective of fundamental rights” The NMA does support Drunk Driving laws and enforcement that works as long as it is fair and reasonable. There is also an organization which is called the Responsibility In DUI Laws (RIDL). Please explore that web site.
4)Improved Traffic Flow, this means to set speed limits under the 85th percent rule of free flowing traffic. Even traffic engineers say this. Alot of studies also show that this is the safest level at which to set speed limits.
5)Sensible Safety Regulations, meaning that safety regulations are used in ways that are reasonable and fair which do not take away freedom. For example the NMA says “The NMA encourages seatbelt use, but it does not support mandatory seatbelt laws and the intrusive and punitive policies they spawn” this means citizens should have freedom of choice when it comes to buckling up however maybe for people under the age of 18 it should be mandatory for them to use seatbelts.
Randy whats so bad about that? The NMA does support reasonable safety regulations NOT nannyism.
Don’t get me wrong Randy because you do have some truth in what you are saying. I have to be honest since there are some things in which the NMA does that I don’t 100% agree with however it is not as bad as you make it seem.