Dying to Get There? (Misstating highway death statistics)

Tech Central Station ^ | 05/16/2003 | Brock Yates

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Here we go again with the annual media hysteria about death and carnage on the American highways. The eye-rolling and hard breathing is based on news from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that in 2002 a total of 42,850 people went to their great reward on the nation's roads. This was the highest since 1990, when the toll was 44,599. On the surface the increase ought to elicit fear and loathing among motorists everywhere.

But wait a minute. Before we reflexively scream in outrage about the number, perhaps we ought to examine the issue beyond the predictable media hype.

For openers, the death rate remains unchanged at 1.51 fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled. That's 100 million miles between every death - an amazing statistic when considering the trillions of tons of rolling stock plying the roads every day and the mind-boggling amounts of kinetic energy unleashed. The point: riding in an automobile on America's public roads is a safe activity, given a sober and fit driver, a properly maintained automobile, and normal weather conditions.

Keep in mind that while the number of fatalities increased, NHTSA reports that Americans drove 48 billion more miles in 2002 than the year before. No doubt seat belt laws, air bags, better tires, and more crashworthy body structures helped keep the damage relatively low, considering the anomalies that distort the seemingly alarming total:

• Of the 48,850 people who died, over 3,000 were pedestrians, most of whom were jaywalkers. Thousands of others were riding motorcycles and bicycles, driving big-rig trucks and farm implements on public roads;
  
• Half of the total deaths involved alcohol or drugs, illegal and legal;
  
• If highways and automobiles had not been improved since statistics were first kept in 1966, the death toll would now be 132,000 a year, or three times as large. Clearly, massive progress has been made, even as speed limits have increased on interstates where safe speeds of 70 to 80 miles per hour are routinely maintained.

Of course the pols and the press continue to flog the dead horse known as SUVs, despite their growing appeal among car buyers. Dr. Jeffrey Runge, the administrator of NHTSA, last year trumpeted the news that SUV rollovers had increased 24 percent over the past 12 months. Sadly ol' Jeff read his press release incorrectly, in that the actual number was 2.4 percent - a foolish error the national press did not bother to correct.

Undeterred, Runge recently noted that 53 percent of the increase in deaths in 2002 was attributable to pickups and SUV rollovers. What he did not mention was that the number totaled only about 360 people, a tiny number from a statistical standpoint when it is recalled that over 220 million motor vehicles travel American highways, driven by tens of millions of motorists in all manner of weather conditions.

While the loss of 48,000 fellow citizens is unfortunate, when the number is analyzed, the fact that it is so low borders on the miraculous. The reality: despite all the fear mongering and headline grabbing, the American public views travel in a private passenger vehicle - be it a car, pickup or SUV - as a low-risk activity.

Presuming one is alert, reasonably prudent and driving in safe weather conditions, there is a better chance of being killed in a household accident than in a motor vehicle.

Stay sober, pay attention, drive within the limits of your skills and your automobile and your safe arrival is practically guaranteed. Trust me on that. And quit reading the papers.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I am starting movement to ban driving. First we'll ban driving in all public and private office buildings especially on elevators. Next we'll force restaurants into providing driving and non-driving sections then force them to be non-driving only. We will ban driving near entrances to buildings and on sidewalks. This will force drivers to pursue there nasty habit in alleyways or streets. Then we will go after bars, "no driving in bars" we'll chant. Then we'll ban it on the streets and alleys. Pretty soon drivers will be forced to drive only in their driveways or homes. Then if a neighbor complains about the noise and the fumes we'll go after the home too.

[TC Rider]

Wonder how many children's lives would be saved if we banned driving within 1000 feet of any school?

[wideawake]

I wonder how many fatalities occurred at night?

[Conspiracy Guy]

The whole ban is for the children.

[Leo Carpathian]

Where is the breakdown how many dummycrats in yugos, how many drunk? Mabee they are purposely trying to skew the statistics in order to exert pressure on SUVistas.

Freep & Roll!

[68skylark]

While the information in this article is good, I dont care for the cavalier tone -- as if 48,000 deaths is no big deal at all.

Actually, I'm really glad to see an article on this topic. Just think about all that's been written about terrorism since 9/11, compared to the articles on traffic deaths. It's odd how one topic looms so large in our minds and the other gets such little press. In fact, lots of people got so scared to fly after 9/11 that they decided to drive more instead of flying -- how smart is that?!

I remember driving a 2-lane rural highway at night in late 2001 and listening to a dumb radio report trying to get listeners worked up about their risk from an anthrax attack. At that time another driver came across the center line at me. Luckily he turned away from me and there was no collision. It got me thinking about how for every one foreign terrorist who wants to kill Americans, there are hundreds of thousands of home-grown drunks on the road who do that job far more effectively.

[68skylark]

Based on the numbers in this article, I calculate that the average driver has a 1-2% chance over a lifetime of dying in a vehicle accident. The chance of a serious injury must be higher -- maybe 3-5% or so. So your the average risk of being killed or badly injured on the road is around 4-6%. I'd say that's fairly high.

I read somewhere that we'll spend many millions or dollars to save one life in our air transport system. People want this money to be spent because they're so afraid of flying. But we could save one life on the highway for roughly every $50,000 to $100,000 we spend to improve the design of our roads. There isn't as much political will for these expenditures because most people don't feel the same level of fear when they're driving.

Personally I think spending $100,000 to save a life is a good idea. But maybe it's not so good if we have to raise taxes to do it -- better to curtail spending in other areas.

[Badray]

If this is true:

". . .I dont care for the cavalier tone"

You're gonna hate this:

If half (it isn't. it's more like 1/3) of road deaths are alcohol related, that means half (or more) are due to stupid sober drivers. Are you any less dead because you are killed by a stupid sober driver?

[Badray]

BTW, the term "alcohol related" is a nice catch all phrase. If a drunk pedestrian stumbles into the path of a car and gets killed, it goes into the stats as another "alcohol related" motor vehicle death. True, but not accurate and not very representative of the facts.

I'll have to find the article that documents it, but if a stupid sober driver crosses into the path of an oncoming car whose driver just had a drink (and nowhere near intoxicated or even the legal limit) with dinner. . . You guessed it! It's another "alcohol related" accident. Even though the 'drinking' driver did nothing wrong.

I'm not advocating drunk driving, only honest reporting.

[LittleJoe]

If half (it isn't. it's more like 1/3) of road deaths are alcohol related

What is alcohol related? Does that mean the accident was caused by a drunk driver?

[68skylark]

The phrase "alcohol related" in this article is a little cavalier. It includes deaths of perfectly innocent people who get killed by a drunk (or a druggie).

[LittleJoe]

That's what I used to think. I belong to a volunteer fire department in a rural county.

At a MADD meeting a couple of months ago, it was stated that we had four alcohol related accidents within the last six months.

I was quite surprised, since I had responded to three of them. One was a car with four passengers who had left a local saloon. Three of the passengers had been drinking. The driver had not. She was the "designated driver." She was sideswipped by a motorhome that crossed over the yellow line, lost control of her car and went over the side. No deaths, four injuries.

That's my favorite example. To make a long story short, only one of the accidents involved a "drunk" driver. He hit a tree that jumped out in front of him!

[Badray]

" What is alcohol related? Does that mean the accident was caused by a drunk driver?"

Not necessarily. It seems from your next post that you see the same thing that I do. The story that I read a while back said that in a lot of cases, if a car leaves the road after 2 in the morning, it gets classified as 'alcohol related' EVEN if the BAC is ZERO. It may be that the driver fell asleep or was forced off the road by someone (of unknown sobriety), but the death gets marked as 'alcohol related'. There were other egregious examples of statistical BS. That article (I have to find it) brought the real toll down to about 30% from the reported 50%.

That would mean that 70% of the deaths are caused by people who are not under the influence of alcohol. Is there a 'Driving While Stupid' checkpoint coming to get these drivers off the road?

Sometimes it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

[Badray]

I am not trying to minimize the loss of life or the pain from that loss - whatever the cause. I just would like to see honest, if undramatic reporting. Then again, the truth of highway deaths might be dramatic if the media ever bothered to look beyond MADD for information.

To me it's no different than going to the Brady people for information on 'gun related' deaths. You know what that picture would look like, don't you?

[68skylark]

Yeah, I agree that this is a topic that really deserves some high-quality attention.

For example, I sometimes have to drive at night on rural 2-lane highways. I'm always fully sober but the drivers around me are not always that way. I've wondered if I'd improve my safety to any measurable degree by not driving these roads as much at night, or if it's unlikely to make any difference in my chance of getting into a bad accident.

People in this country spend WAY too much time reading about (and worrying about) risks that are laughably miniscule. Yet there's very little information on the big risks that actually do kill a lot of people.

[Old Professer]

The scary thing is that dead sober drivers now outnumber dead drunk drivers.

[LittleJoe]

Sometimes it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work

It sure does.
What about insurance? Would the sober designated driver now have an alcohol related accident on her record?

[Badray]

"People in this country spend WAY too much time reading about (and worrying about) risks that are laughably miniscule."

Agreed. You must be alert and defensive, but the stress of worrying about it can kill you too.

Stay safe.

[Badray]

Good question. I'd think that the insurance company would have hard time making that stick. It seems that the important thing is to REPORT it as alcohol related.