Friday, September 10, 2010

2009 US Road deaths plunge to… 34,000???

There’s nothing like optimism to make a horrific number seem okay. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently reported that 33,808 people died on our roads in 2009. It’s difficult to even imagine such a number, and the easiest thing to do is to simply not think about it. But for those of you who might be outraged or even just a little concerned about such mass mortality, there are people like Morning Call journalist Dan Hartzell and, alternatively, yours truly.

For those of you who might care, Hartzell alleviates those cares with perhaps the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard about traffic deaths: “…the 33,808 deaths recorded last year represent 3,615 lives spared, if you will, compared with the 37,423 people killed in 2008.” Wow! Is this really his idea of good news? He might as well have said, “But at least 310,180,000 Americans survived!” I guess when it comes to our highway system and the deaths that it causes, I’m a little more pessimistic. Try this for perspective: In 2009, the entire City of Easton died on United States highways and roads. Or how about this: 4 times as many people died on our roads last year than Americans who died between 2001 and the present in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the two resulting wars. Or: Our traffic death rate is twice our murder rate, which itself is second highest in the world! How about this: While the death rate for rail passengers is currently 25 per 100 million miles of rail, our death rate for motorists, put in those same terms, is 1,338,136! And for good measure: Since our roads are subsidized at a rate of about $700 billion per year, or about $5,000 per tax payer per year, every 4,141 taxpayers literally pay for the death of 1 motorist.

And we’re okay with this, because we get relatively cheap subsidized gas, cheap goods transported by our subsidized trucking industry, and free parking. It’s what economists call a “free good,” a purposeful distortion of the market that takes away the demand ceiling so that we’ll continue to support industries that run our economy at perpetually higher rates every year. And it has been so successful that we are willing to put our lives on the line every day just to get a piece of it. Why? Because free goods predictably cause us to recognize that we are getting a massive deal every time we purchase that good (driving). And we all know that Americans simply can’t pass up a deal. To be fair, the rules of psychology show us that no one can, and our corporations and law makers know this all too well.

So, here’s my question: If the libertarian conservatives (and the Republicans who pretend to be ones) claim to be such pure free-marketeers and so deeply concerned about federal spending, why is a federal highway, industrial food system, and local free parking industry that receives over $700 billion per year in tax-payer subsidies (at 10% of our GNP, more than Social Security or Medicare) and kills off entire cities-worth of people not on their radars? Why does no one of importance (who can make or execute laws) ever talk about this? Is it because, as long as they don’t die on the road, they benefit from the system? Or is it because of their thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from said industries? This I would like to know.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

We've developed to a point where we just accept death due to automobile crashes. We still call them "accidents", when often there's nothing accidental about them. There's a certain amount of individual responsibility that goes along with driving- wearing seat belts, obeying traffic laws, avoiding distracting behaviors like texting, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, etc. Yet when many crashes are caused by individual irresponsibility and gov't intervenes to protect us and improve safety, people cry about their rights being taken away.

There's so much more we can do to reduce deaths (and injuries) on our highways, including training our young drivers better, making cars (even) safer and holding drivers to a higher level of responsibilty. Oh yeah, and lessening the overuse of the automobile with other (safer and cleaner) mass transit options.

Big daddy said...

Big daddy says: I'm astonished by the length that you have gone to to make a very good arguement. Your figures are staggering, and rightly emphasized. Being a 180 miler, daily, I see it all.I even partake occasionally in some of those irresponsibilities by cell phone talking. But just listening to the traffic reports, (every 10 minuites on the 9's), I can understand why the numbers are so high. And now the Obama group wants to spend billions more on infrastructure, roads, bridges, high speed rail, etc. all under the guise of employement creation. Where will it all end?! Repubs., Dems.,......Teaparty anyone????????

Ryan Champlin said...

Big Daddy... you bring up an interesting point about infrastructure spending. At last count, the US has $4 trillion worth of transportation infrastructure that is in need of repair. To keep from raising taxes, we have put off spending this money... I guess with the hope that the problem will just go away. But these problems aren't just "roads to nowhere." Most of this infrastructure was built to make suburban growth possible. These are the much-used freeways, arterials, and surface streets that serve the neighborhoods in which most of us live.

So, when will the infrastructure spending end? Well, we've pretty much made sure over the past 60 years of outward growth that the answer to that question is "never." I've said it before and I'll say it again... the most sure-fire way to tax increases (on so many levels) and/or deficits is further suburban growth. Until we decrease our land consumption rates (at about 4 times the rate of population growth), we cannot expect our infrastructure deficit to decrease.

I am just as fed up with our two-party system as you are... but the Tea Party candidates have yet to show me something I can support. The reason is that it is led so completely by ideology that nothing makes a lick of sense. Abolish minimum wage, unemployment benefits, medicare and medicaid, unions... the list goes on and on. As I said in a recent local blog comment, "only a rich person could honestly support these proposals," because only a rich person doesn't rely on these safety nets. Without a minimum wage base, the prospect of medicare, and your union to fight for your benefits, where would you be right now?

Of course, there have been other Tea Party proposals along the same lines as the ones I mention above, but you get the idea.

What Tea Party policy proposals do you support, and why? What are the "greater good" benefits of those policies?

Ryan Champlin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Champlin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Champlin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Champlin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.