Big, shocking numbers attached to diffuse phenomena are weird — one reads them and kind of goes, “Hmm, that’s a lot!” But there are no collapsing skyscapers to look at on tv, and after a moment of trying to figure how to react, one tends to go back to one’s Wii Bowling or whatever.
Consider that, in the past 14 years, speed limits higher than 55 mph and our strange tolerance of the dangers of cell phone use while driving together may have cost the country more than 25,000 lives and more than a trillion dollars. Even by the large-livin’ standards of this country, that’s quite a toll from two perfectly preventable causes. But… yeah.
The reason we’re hitching these two phenomena together is that have both been in the news this week–alarming stories about the unexpected and preventable toll of each–and that they also seem to be similar in some fundamental respect. (More on that latter thought presently.)
This morning, the NY Times ran a front page story about how in 2003 some miserable stooges at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration iburied plans for a long-term study of the safety implications of driving while using cell phones and also deep sixed a fact sheet that already made a pretty strong case it was unsafe. They did this for bureaucratic reasons–afraid that they’d run afoul of Congress and might endanger their funding.
Today, it’s still legal in every state in the country to talk on a cell phone while driving — despite the ample evidence that it makes you a clear and present danger to everybody else on the road, as bad or worse than a drunk. New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington have banned hand-helds, but studies generally show that hands-free devices are just as bad. In most other states it’s perfectly legal be a sixteen year-old walking out of the DOT with newly laminated license still warm in your hand and pull out of the parking lot onto a busy boulevard chatting on your flip phone to your best friend Stacie about how amazing this day is and how your picture actually turned out pretty ok but you hate how your smile is kinda crooked and–CRASH!
As of 2002, cell phone use by drivers seemed to be killing about 1,000 US motorists a year, according to estimates by the federal government (repeat: by the federal government). Since then the number of cell subscribers has jumped 50 percent, from 150 million to 270 million, so perhaps the number of deaths has risen too. And the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis figures that the convenience of being able to chat while we motor around costs the country about $43 billion annually.
We’ve known all this for a long time. Denmark restricted hand-held use in 1998. According to Wikipedia (btw, one of our favorite phrases in the English language), several countries including Japan and Israel have banned all cell phone use, including hands-free devices. Since we can’t find other back up for that assertion and we’ll guess it’s wrong, but the Philippines has recently considered the idea.
Then there’s the matter of speed limits. A new study in the American Journal of Public Health finds that the decision in 1995 to rescind the national 55 mph speed limit has cost 12,545 lives (give or take a few, we’d imagine) as of 2005. At that rate–1,200 lives or so every year–we can ballpark another 4,000 or so to take us up to the present day. Says the study’s lead author: “‘We survived for 20 years on [the 55-mph limit],’ he said. ‘We were doing perfectly fine.’”
We couldn’t locate a cost estimate for the higher speed limits, but the authors figure about 40,000 injuries result each year, so it’s certain to be a very large number. It’s not crazy to think that the combined societal costs might be in the range of $1 trillion since the advent of cell phones and higher speed limits.
If we did address these things in a legislative context, there would be a lot of grousing though. US News reported on the speed limit study and got this rather stunning quote: “Driving fast can prove fatal, but most of the time gets us from A to B more efficiently,” said Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn. “Driving slow will save the lives of some, but gum up the schedules of all.”
The next expert quote makes the point the speed limits over 65 is where things really start to get dangerous. So “slow” is still pretty fast. What’s crazy about Katz’s remark is to imagine it in other contexts: Would he say security checks at airports should be dropped? “Sure, we’ll probably have a 9/11-style attack every year or so that will cost a few thousand lives and $50 billion–but airport security gums up the schedules of millions of travelers.” Ha! Just imagine saying that.
So, a question: Why does preventable human carnage seem not to count as much when it’s on the highway?
July 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Answer to your question: because some weird twist of fate in our nation’s history led to the equation of the personal automobile with ideas like “freedom.”
July 21st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
We’ve had airports and jumbo jets for 40+ years and we’ve had one 9/11-style attack.
Yes, I think it’s absolutely worth it to return to the “old style” airport security, especially when the current system *doesn’t even work*.
Of course, you didn’t mention that doing things like building embassies in Iraq that are bigger than the Vatican is the actual cause of 9/11-style attacks, not degree of airport security.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Just an off-the-cuff guess (put on your tinfoil hats): It’s all part of an effort to keep the automobile as the primary mode of transportation in the United States. Life in this country is getting faster and busier and people need to multi-task to keep up. So, we let it pass when people want to take care of other business instead of staying completely focused on the road, and then we allow ourselves to do this all at faster and faster speeds regardless of the danger.
What is the safer alternative? An extensive mass transit system. Inter-regional high-speed rail, subway and light rail systems connecting urban areas, streetcars and busses taking people around within a city; all of these would be perfectly safe places to use your cell phone while in transit or moving at high speeds. Instead of diverting funding from our road infrastructure to create a faster, safer method of travel, we just allow ourselves to keep on killing each other with this bludgeons on wheels because it’s “un-American” to not own a car.
Yes, a little conspiracy-theory-ish. But it seems to me that if we want to use our transit time to make our phone calls, or if we want to travel at speeds that should be restricted to race tracks and train tracks, then maybe we should be willing to invest in something other than the automobile.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Ken, “Just another word for nothin’ left to lose”?
Carl, Agreed, to some extent. I actually had a sentence in there about airport security being pretty useless but took it out because I felt it might be a distraction.
-JR
July 21st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Why does preventable human carnage seem not to count as much when it’s on the highway?”
By now you know the 11th Commandment: “Though Shalt Not pursue ANY endeavor that Questions our God-Given Right to pilot an automobile.”
I agree with carlivar on one thing: Think of all the money wasted on airport security nowadays. You think the “turrists” would try a 9/11-style attack again? Passengers would jump all over them like white on rice!
I have to disagree with carlivar, however, on the causes of 9/11-type attacks. Has nothing to do with our fortress-embassy in Iraq, it’s our unconditional support of Israel, and Mid-East envy of our relative prosperity (vs. the poor bastards unlucky enough to be born in between Morocco and New Delhi).
July 21st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I completely agree about how dangerous cell phone use is while driving. I typically only use the phone while on the highway when the traffic isn’t too heavy. And I always keep the conversation short and to the point. Something like “I’ll meet you at the Safeway in 20 minutes”. And I think the two most dangerous things about using the phone while driving are dialing and untangling a handsfree device. Although I’m not sure why we seem to single out cell phones. I think people should be ticketed for poor driving no matter what the cause: eating, shaving, reading, talking to passengers, or simply not paying attention.
I’m not sure I believe the bit about the higher speed limits. I would like to know their data. How do they determine that the accident would be preventable if the speed limit was lower? Is weather a factor (is it because people are driving 65 even in the snow and rain)? Have other environmental changes happened over the past few years that contribute to more accidents (different education programs, iPods, traffic signage and laws, etc)? Maybe I’m just biased because I have a bit of a heavy foot, but I feel more alert at higher speeds, and when I arrive at my destination earlier I feel less fatigued.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I think the airport one was a fitting analogy to the state of our national psyche at this moment. I do hope we’ll avoid Mideast/Iraq War/blah blah and focus on the issue at hand.
Question is, what can the government do other than reinstate the older policies and try and enforce the cell phone issue? How much will the public allow? As stated above, we gained the notion long ago as a country that the ‘automobile’ is our ticket to freedom and its not only bound up in our rites of passage these days (license at 16, ‘adult’, driving to prom, etc) but we’re also addicted to a faster pace of life and think we have to drive faster. We’re more than happy to spend a hundred dollars or so buying a radar detector rather than just slowing down to the proper speed limit. I can’t say I’m exempt but, as another study says, we all overexaggerate our abilities as drivers to some extent. People properly obeying such simplicities as using turn signals, not passing on the right, and using the left lane for going fast and right for slow cars could help. Speed works on the Autobahn - but there people strictly obey the rules of the road and they are very tough on enforcement.
We now have the idea of health care reform once again in the air with a fighting chance but I tend to think the idea of ‘health care’ and public responsibility for it goes beyond just whether our money goes to insurance companies or the government - it’s these other little issues that add up. Automobile crashes, obesity, etc, that are appallingly taken as par for the course by ourselves and government. We’ve come a long way with seatbelts, air bags, and such but that is all post-crash rather than preventative.
Just some thoughts.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Well, I favor a mass transit system over automobiles too. Did we ignore Matt’s comment because it wasn’t a combination of one-liners and sound bites?
July 21st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Why does preventable human carnage seem not to count as much when it’s on the highway?”
For the same reason that heart disease and type 2 diabetes are such a big problem. Each individual makes their own choices, weighing the risks that they have not experienced first-hand against the benefits that they have. People are not very good at judging risk, especially if it comes as a sum of small risks and not one large dramatic one. And in North America, the financial interests that benefit from those choices have a much stronger voice in public policy than does any kind of overarching government interest in overall health and financial well-being.
How do you convince people to support policies that most feel would make their lives worse? It can be done, but is is not easy.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
What a bunch of statist tripe. Reading from the same NHTSA data from 1993 to 2004, the fatality rate dropped further in states posting speed limits of greater than 65 mph than those keeping 65 mph speed limits on their rural interstates. During that time period, there were barely 50,000 fatalities on the nation’s rural interstate system, so to say that the speed limit caused half is misrepresentation, half-truth, and fabrication. In a world where medical errors are responsible for 100,000 deaths annually, doctors have no credibility when it comes to saving lives on the highway.
Reducing the speed limit to 55 or even 65 mph will do nothing to improve highway safety, in fact, crashes will likely rise.
Most of us didn’t survive too well under the 55 mph limit. Over 200 million speeding tickets were issued in the 20 or so years of the speed limit. People saw their insurance premiums rise and it bred wholesale disrespect the law and law enforcement. During the most intensive years of 55 mph enforcement, between 1977-1980, fatality rates rose from 3.2 deaths per 100 mvmt to 3.5. Fatalities rose to over 51,000 in 1980. Only after police started shifting emphasis to drunk driving enforcement in 1982 did fatalities drop again.
55 mph will happen again over my dead body.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Henry,
I don’t think anyone is trying to suggest that 25,000 people died because of speeding on rural interstates between 1993 and 2004. I’d give the study, or coverage of it, a read. Both the US News and NY Times pieces are pretty good.
For the record, I’d tend to agree that 55 is low. 65 seems reasonable to me. 80, by contrast, does not.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
<em.Speed works on the Autobahn - but there people strictly obey the rules of the road and they are very tough on enforcement
Which is why they just had a 259 car accident on the Autobahn… Whatever the cause of it at least a few of those people were disobeying the rule(s) about following at a safe distance.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
It looks like NHTSA may be getting ready to regulate the use of cell phones in cars, following other federal regulators in demonstrating that it is willing to flex its regulatory muscles. In today’s political and regulatory environment, cell phone companies need to read the writing on the wall and move beyond simply denying that there is a problem with cell phone use behind the wheel. Instead, they should engage in the conversation and make sure they have a seat at the table when new regulations are written. I wrote more on this topic at BulletproofBlog.com: http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2009/07/21/cell-phones-and-driving-a-cold-reception-likely-on-capitol-hill/
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
[...] Full Cost of Distracted, Faster Driving: 25,000 Deaths and $1 Trillion (Infrastructurist) [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
A 65 highway speed limit means most drivers are averaging between 75-80 mph. On urban roads a posted 35 means most are driving between 40-45. Add in the #1 distraction and we wonder why pedestrians and cyclists have become endangered species? Either pure idiocy, mass denial or a massive conspiracy. Can cell phone companies being considered at fault? Shouldn’t we require federal law that cell phones and other mobile devices be made unusable when a private motorized vehicle is in motion?
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Not hard to figure out: The telecoms want as much cell phone use as possible and industry of all sorts wants its truckers to get their products where they are supposed to go ASAP.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
As is the Autobahn comment above, one thing Americans do on the freeway that makes it more dangerous is not observe the rules of the lane.
I drive in the UK frequently, and while they can have some spectacular wrecks, they all observe the lane rules, which are:
The fast lane is for going FAST! In the UK, drivers get out of the fast lane if they are going slow, and they move over if a faster driver comes up behind them, only in the fast lane.
If drivers want to drive more slowly, they use either the real slow lane, or the middle lane. The fast lane is for hauling a..
This requires that drivers on the motorways pay more attention to the road and what is going on around them.
When I come back to the States, I am often frustrated at the chaotic self-absorption of American freeway drivers. Slow drivers in the fast lane who won’t move over if a faster driver comes up behind them, or who are so wrapped up in themselves they never look in the rear-view mirror. In the UK, the fast lane is generally open and you can go around 2 lanes of slower drivers. It makes for smoother driving.
In the States, slow drivers are sprinkled across all lanes, and pretty much have the attitude that they will drive where they want when they want.
I believe this contributes to riskier driving on the part of faster drivers, who make frequent lane and dangerous lane changes to get around the lard ass(es) in the fast lane(s).
Bottom line: it’s American narcissism and lack of attention that makes higher speeds here contribute to auto wrecks.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
We needd to ban cell phones and cars, this slaughter must not be allowed to continue.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@Glenn:
Ah yes, the “they hate us for our freedom/prosperity” argument.
They must also loathe Japan and South Korea, right?
Agreed on Israel though.
Sorry, should have added good post! Waiting on your next one!
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I’ve gotta second both Jimmy and McJeff: people do all sorts of things in the car that contribute to dangerous driving, and drivers on the whole tend to not pay attention to the traffic around them.
“Chaotic self-absorption” seems to sum up the daily driving experience.
And anecdotally it seems the California cell-phone ban is not having the desired effect of stopping such activity. I still see dozens of people every day holding a cell-phone while driving, or more frequently meandering all over the road.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It’s not speed, or cell phones or whatever, it’s the quality of the drivers. Formula 1 drivers have radio conversations at 180 mph, because, you know, they’re good.
Personally, I think it should be much, much harder to obtain a drivers license, and should involve a few days of training (and testing) in high performance driving — i.e. emergency braking, high speed lane change avoidance manuever, skid control. (The electronic driver aids help, but aren’t good enough. E.g., with ABS, people are less likely to rear-end another car, but are more likely to leave the pavement.)
But that kind of stringent screening will never happen.
In California, the 65 mph speed limit on freeways has reduced the variance in speed (no data, just my observation), which is safer. The left-lane boulders are at least going a more reasonable speed. And the speedsters aren’t going any faster. People still do 80 mph on the big empty stretches of I-5.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Well, it would be nice to see the dataset and the statistics supporting their conclusions. I would doubt many additional deaths could be attributed to increasing the limits on rural Interstates, because the 55 limit on these roads was the most laughed-at and ignored law in the history of the U.S.
I recall when limits on suburban freeways in Michigan were increased from 55 to 70, in 1996, the state police reported average actual speeds increased from like 68 to 72. It just meant the limit finally was set at a reasonable level. Of course, it helped that it was common knowledge that, even under the 55 limit, the Michigan state cops pretty much didn’t write tickets for under 70.
Unrealistically low speed limits foster disregard for all traffic laws, increase stress and fatigue, and don’t save lives. They are, however, popular with cops, because they make the cops’ jobs easier (one can fill a month’s quota in a few hours of speed trap duty on an Interstate with a 55 limit).
OTOH, I agree totally that one shouldn’t use a cell phone and drive at the same time. When I’m driving, my cell phone is for emergency use only, which means I don’t use it. When I’m driving with other people, I’m not a very communicative driver, because I’m focusing on the traffic, not on what my passengers are saying.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The speed-related crash so-called “study” is anything but. It’s leader admits it was nothing more than baseless conjecture by noting “The only explanation we can think of [for accident statistics] is the highway speeds.”
Did he ever consider, uh, basic research, like examining accident statistics on roads where speed limits were raised compared to roads where they weren’t, as recommended above?
Trash science at its worst.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
A few years after the 55 mph national speed limit was imposed by Congressional fiat as a result of the first gas crisis of the 1970’s, we began to see the papers showing that the lower speed limits had saved thousands of lives.
Then, the late, great Charles Lave of the University of California-Irvine took a look at the data — and showed that the change in the speed limit had almost nothing to do with the change in safety stat’s; what was going on was that the increase in the price of fuel and the real and potential difficulty in getting fuel on long drives had caused a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); the outcome rates (fatalities/VMT, etc.) didn’t change, the VMT changed. While his analysis was so clearly proper, it was so difficult to get people to listen and to understand his message, he was still writing and speaking on the subject two decades later.
I’m still wondering if it is worth the $30 to get a copy of this paper to determine how — and if — the authors adjusted for VMT traveled, considering that it was increasing during the study period.
The old saying, “speed kills,” sounds so logical — however, when it comes to speed limits, it wrong; unfortunately, often, dead wrong.
Congrat’s to Henry, who actually went and got the data, reviewed, and posted his fact-driven conclusion.
It is not that “speed kills,” it is the VARIATION in speed that kills. For maximum safety, the more homogeneous the speed, the better, reducing passing movements and providing for relatively constant intervals between vehicles. The way to achieve this is to allow people to travel the speed that they are comfortable traveling, which generally causes more uniformity of speeds. Interestingly, raising speed limits doesn’t cause huge changes in actual average speed and, in some cases, has actually reduced the average speed.
State after state that has increased speed limits on limited access highways has shown safety IMPROVEMENTS. The Autobaun, including those sections with no speed limits, has half the fatality rate of U.S. Interstates — and Interstates are the safest roads in the U.S., not IN SPITE of being the fastest, but BECAUSE they are the fastest.
Since at least the late 1930’s, there has a been a consistent and growing body of knowledge that most people have the common sense to drive in a manner that seems safe to them and, therefore, based on the review of actual safety statistics, the general recommendation is to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile of constrained speed. This has been the adopted position of the Institute of Transportation Engineers for decades and is actually the adopted rule of the Federal government, as well as being the standard in many state laws. Here is a link to an excellent recent paper on the history and the data behind this:
whttp://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/bhspi-iteco.pdf
As to those who posted on the poor quality of American drivers, you have put your finger on one of the biggest problems on the road. Most American drivers have never even heard the term, “lane discipline,” let along know what it means and what they should do on a Interstate/freeway.
I am in agreement on the safety comments re cell phone usage; however, we need to recognize that the real issue is distractions and that cell phones are only one type of distraction to drivers. My two “champion” rush hour multi-tasking drivers are the guy who was shaving — WITH FOAM AND A STRAIGHT RAZOR — and the one eating breakfast — A BOWL OF CEREAL.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
[...] set off another round of calls to ban the use of cell phones while driving. Most of these people, mind you, don’t want to simply ensure both hands are on the [...]
July 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
[...] Infrastructurist Tallies the High Cost of DWD, Higher Speed [...]