AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year

March 27, 2008
AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --- The societal cost of crashes is a staggering
$164.2 billion annually, nearly two and a half times greater than the
$67.6 billion price tag for congestion, according to a new report
released by AAA.

The report, "Crashes vs. Congestion: What's the Cost to Society?,"
demonstrates that traffic safety issues warrant increased attention
from the public and policymakers, particularly as Congress prepares to
reauthorize federal transportation programs in 2009.

"Most Americans will be surprised to learn that motor vehicle crashes
cost more than the congestion they face on their daily commute to
work," said AAA President and CEO Robert L. Darbelnet. "Great work has
been done by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to quantify the
costs of congestion, raise awareness for the problem and offer
solutions. We feel safety deserves a similar focus."

According to the study conducted by Cambridge Systematics, the $164.2
billion cost for crashes equates to an annual per person cost of
$1,051, compared to $430 per person annually for congestion. These
safety costs include medical, emergency and police services, property
damage, lost productivity, and quality of life, among other things.

The report calculates the costs of crashes for the same metropolitan
areas covered by the annual Urban Mobility Report conducted by TTI. In
every metropolitan area studied, from very large to small, the results
showed crash costs exceeded congestion. For very large urban areas
(more than 3 million), crash costs are nearly double those of
congestion. Those costs rise to more than seven times congestion costs
in small urban areas (less than 500,000) where congestion is less of a
challenge.

"Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said
Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities
barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor
vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If
there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would
ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to
accept this sort of death toll with car crashes."

The report includes several recommendations to improve safety,
including support for a national safety goal of cutting surface
transportation fatalities in half by 2025, as recommended by the
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Chan...Each-Year.aspx

The report may be found here-
http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Defa...&ArticleID=596
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 31, 8:23 am, gpsman > wrote:
> March 27, 2008
> AAA Study: Cost of Crashes Tops $164.2 Billion Each Year
>
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --- The societal cost of crashes is a staggering
> $164.2 billion annually, nearly two and a half times greater than the
> $67.6 billion price tag for congestion, according to a new report
> released by AAA.
>
> The report, "Crashes vs. Congestion: What's the Cost to Society?,"
> demonstrates that traffic safety issues warrant increased attention
> from the public and policymakers, particularly as Congress prepares to
> reauthorize federal transportation programs in 2009.
>
> "Most Americans will be surprised to learn that motor vehicle crashes
> cost more than the congestion they face on their daily commute to
> work," said AAA President and CEO Robert L. Darbelnet. "Great work has
> been done by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to quantify the
> costs of congestion, raise awareness for the problem and offer
> solutions. We feel safety deserves a similar focus."
>
> According to the study conducted by Cambridge Systematics, the $164.2
> billion cost for crashes equates to an annual per person cost of
> $1,051, compared to $430 per person annually for congestion. These
> safety costs include medical, emergency and police services, property
> damage, lost productivity, and quality of life, among other things.
>
> The report calculates the costs of crashes for the same metropolitan
> areas covered by the annual Urban Mobility Report conducted by TTI. In
> every metropolitan area studied, from very large to small, the results
> showed crash costs exceeded congestion. For very large urban areas
> (more than 3 million), crash costs are nearly double those of
> congestion. Those costs rise to more than seven times congestion costs
> in small urban areas (less than 500,000) where congestion is less of a
> challenge.
>
> "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said
> Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities
> barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor
> vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If
> there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would
> ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to
> accept this sort of death toll with car crashes."
>
> The report includes several recommendations to improve safety,
> including support for a national safety goal of cutting surface
> transportation fatalities in half by 2025, as recommended by the
> National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Chan...-Management/Ne...
>
> The report may be found here-http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=7&ArticleID=596
> -----
>
> - gpsman

I've been saying this for years. Cracking down on criminal drivers
would not only save lives but lots of money. Throwing criminal drivers
in prison would pay for itself a hundred-fold.

"gpsman" > wrote in message
...

> "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said
> Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities
> barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor
> vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If
> there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would
> ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to
> accept this sort of death toll with car crashes."

So very true. 43,000 people per year averages out to be around 830 each
week and 118 daily. That's over a hundred deaths spread out all across the
country and usually with one or two at each scene. Notice how a crash that
kills 8 makes national news, but 8 crashes that kill 1 each don't? Same
number of deaths, they're just scattered out and not as "spectacular" as one
massive crash killing that many.

John B.

On Mar 31, 12:01 pm, "John B." > wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said
> > Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities
> > barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor
> > vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If
> > there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would
> > ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to
> > accept this sort of death toll with car crashes."
>
> So very true. 43,000 people per year averages out to be around 830 each
> week and 118 daily. That's over a hundred deaths spread out all across the
> country and usually with one or two at each scene. Notice how a crash that
> kills 8 makes national news, but 8 crashes that kill 1 each don't? Same
> number of deaths, they're just scattered out and not as "spectacular" as one
> massive crash killing that many.
>
> John B.

Even the crash that kills 8 gets scant coverage and NEVER leads to
calls for stiffer penalties for criminal drivers. The media is paid
very handsomely by the auto industry to call all deadly crashes
"accidents" and then move on to something else.

On Apr 1, 11:56*am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:01 pm, "John B." > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "gpsman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > "Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said
> > > Darbelnet. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities
> > > barely registers as a blip in most people's minds. It's time for motor
> > > vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If
> > > there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would
> > > ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet, we've come to
> > > accept this sort of death toll with car crashes."
>
> > So very true. *43,000 people per year averages out to be around 830 each
> > week and 118 daily. *That's over a hundred deaths spread out all across the
> > country and usually with one or two at each scene. *Notice how a crash that
> > kills 8 makes national news, but 8 crashes that kill 1 each don't? *Same
> > number of deaths, they're just scattered out and not as "spectacular" as one
> > massive crash killing that many.
>
> > John B.
>
> Even the crash that kills 8 gets scant coverage and NEVER leads to
> calls for stiffer penalties for criminal drivers. The media is paid
> very handsomely by the auto industry to call all deadly crashes
> "accidents" and then move on to something else

And of course the real cost doesn't end with the dead, but attaches to
those who are maimed, and need expensive treatment and therapy, and
who can't work, or become more costly to employ because special
provisions need to be made. It appears in the impositions on the
families whose lives are also diminished and who have, in some cases,
to structure their work arrangements around supporting someone with a
disability. It turns up in the children whose relationships with
parents and siblings is damaged when a death or serious injury has
affected the family.

Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep
Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and
trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on
Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma
is there? No wag the dog factor. Indeed, there could be a cost, since
many people like driving their cars whenever they feel like it, and
efficient, effective public transport costs serious money, and as you
say, the car lobby (and the fuel lobby) is well cashed up.

Fran

In article >, Fran wrote:

>Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep
>Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and
>trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on
>Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the
people of the USA. We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are
way behind when it comes to road usage. Do you really want to have a
TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the
supermarket?

The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare
to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright
banned, has killed thousands. It has destroyed neighborhoods, ruined
lives, seen innocent people killed by the police because of an
informant's lie or just the inability to get the correct address. The
war on terror is just getting started but it's already claiming its own
domestic victims as the powers government got to go after terrorists are
being used to go after political opponents (banking as in the case of
the NY gov, that's war on drugs too) and even common street crime or
copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only
progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy.

>But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma
>is there?

Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on
terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has
taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth.
Government increases its size and power through each of them.

On Apr 1, 12:43*pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Fran wrote:
> >Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep
> >Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and
> >trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on
> >Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff.
>
> The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the
> people of the USA.


So far so good.

> We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are
> way behind when it comes to road usage.

That's just the point though. They aren't.

> Do you really want to have a
> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the
> supermarket? *
>

Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare
of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage,
your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle
and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s).
Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving
behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to
exceed speed limits or approached a traffic control signal rather too
quickly, or crossed an unbroken road separation line or overtook too
close to a crest, you'd be given a warning. If you actually broke the
road rule, you'd get an on the spot (but modest, scaled, fine). Your
licence could be suspended in real time, and your car shut down on 5
business days notice. Police could shut you down on the spot. I'd
abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars
however.

> The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare
> to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright
> banned, has killed thousands. It has destroyed neighborhoods, ruined
> lives, seen innocent people killed by the police because of an
> informant's lie or just the inability to get the correct address. The
> war on terror is just getting started but it's already claiming its own
> domestic victims as the powers government got to go after terrorists are
> being used to go after political opponents (banking as in the case of
> the NY gov, that's war on drugs too) and even common street crime or
> copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only
> progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. *
>

Not the same. The right to drive a vehicle on public roads is a
privilege, extended to those who make it their business not to
infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right. What you
choose to ingest of course, really is your own business.

> >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma
> >is there?
>
> Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on
> terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has
> taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth.
> Government increases its size and power through each of them.

Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling
divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources
is one of them. The ways in which people get from A to B demand
oversight. It's that simple.

Fran

In article >, Fran wrote:
>On Apr 1, 12:43*pm, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Fran wrote:
>> >Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep
>> >Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and
>> >trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on
>> >Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff.
>>
>> The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the
>> people of the USA.
>
>
>So far so good.
>
>> We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are
>> way behind when it comes to road usage.
>
>That's just the point though. They aren't.

I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on
terror is rather intrusive, much of it unseen to most people, but once
you experience it the intrusiveness is quite obvious. Or maybe you meant
the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad
enough.

>> Do you really want to have a
>> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the
>> supermarket? *

>Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare
>of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage,
>your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle
>and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s).

Nice little control freak world there. Soon only the favored people of
the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend
and bribe the right people to have a chance at permission.

>Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving
>behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to
>exceed speed limits or approached a traffic control signal rather too
>quickly, or crossed an unbroken road separation line or overtook too
>close to a crest, you'd be given a warning. If you actually broke the
>road rule, you'd get an on the spot (but modest, scaled, fine). Your
>licence could be suspended in real time, and your car shut down on 5
>business days notice. Police could shut you down on the spot. I'd
>abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars
>however.

Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do
you think such control over people's lives is a good thing? All
governments go bad sooner or later, why do you want to hurry the process
along so and make it that much worse? Do you operate under the illusion
government won't use the power against you? Or is it because you see
yourself as such a small person you figure that won't matter to you, as
you'll never have political office or anything like that? Or is the joy
more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like? Using government as
bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of
control freakism?

>> The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare
>> to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright
>> banned, has killed thousands. It has destroyed neighborhoods, ruined
>> lives, seen innocent people killed by the police because of an
>> informant's lie or just the inability to get the correct address. The
>> war on terror is just getting started but it's already claiming its own
>> domestic victims as the powers government got to go after terrorists are
>> being used to go after political opponents (banking as in the case of
>> the NY gov, that's war on drugs too) and even common street crime or
>> copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only
>> progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. *

>Not the same. The right to drive a vehicle on public roads is a
>privilege,

You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible.
Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted
privilege. If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then
government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people
now believe it to be a privilege because that's what the government
schools taught them. However, if one looks back into the history of the
automobile, it's not a privilege, it effectively became one because of
mass belief, but that's all it is, belief.

> extended to those who make it their business not to
>infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right.

Then the infringements are where the government comes in. Not making
something a privilege where government can tie anything it likes to the
use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must
take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license. Under the
privilege concept it can do that and much worse.

> What you choose to ingest of course, really is your own business.

How gracious of you. However to believe that government gets to watch
where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted
tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible. That sort of watching
and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the
movie, "Refer Maddness"? Look at why drugs needed to be controled. It
wasn't only because people would poison themselves.

>> >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma
>> >is there?

>> Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on
>> terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has
>> taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth.
>> Government increases its size and power through each of them.

>Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling
>divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources
>is one of them.

Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best.
It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices,
corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts
to manage ends up like that.

> The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that
> simple.

government screws everything it touches up. Of course the answer is
always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing
bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of
course is to give the fed more control! You're using the same logic.
It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results.
More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off
following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls
and enforcement.

On Apr 1, 2:33*pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article >, Fran wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 12:43*pm, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >, Fran wrote:
> >> >Really, if the government were spending its resources trying to keep
> >> >Americans safe according to the actual and prospective morbidity and
> >> >trauma stats, road safety would be way ahead of Defence or the "War on
> >> >Terror", the "War on Drugs" and a whole bunch of other stuff.
>
> >> The war on drugs and the war on terror are wars on the liberty of the
> >> people of the USA.
>
> >So far so good.
>
> >> We should be happy that such intrusive attacks are
> >> way behind when it comes to road usage.
>
> >That's just the point though. They aren't.
>
> I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on
> terror is rather intrusive, much of it unseen to most people, but once
> you experience it the intrusiveness is quite obvious. Or maybe you meant
> the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad
> enough.


Neither. I was saying that a lot more resources are devoted to
prosecuting the 'war on drugs" or "the war on terror" than on policies
that would reduce road trauma.

> >> Do you really want to have a
> >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the
> >> supermarket? *
> >Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare
> >of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage,
> >your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle
> >and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s).
>
> Nice little control freak world there. Soon only the favored people of
> the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend
> and bribe the right people to have a chance at permission.

There's absolutely nothing to stop that happening right now, aside
from the fact that most people wouldn't put up with it. Actually, if
you think about it, it makes perfect sense from a market perspective.

Instead of paying large lumps of money to cover third party insurance,
and road taxes for vehicles that are heavier than yours and do more
damage or based on vehicles that are taking up scarce but luxuriantly
maintained road space while you're driving on some potholed low
traffic road, you pay according to what you use and your risk to
others. If you don't drive much, or drive off peak, or use a car that
is fuel economical or are an excellent law-abiding driver, then you
should pay less than someone who isn't.

Another advantage is that every car that gets off the road creates
more spavce for those on the road, improving the safety and amenity of
the roads for those who don't have good alternatives. Sure, you pay
more per unit of distance, but you get a better quality service, and
your car suffers less wear and tear, and your vehicle's property
insurance charge declines. You get some of your time back each day,
and time, as they say, is money.

>
> >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving
> >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to
> >exceed speed limits or approached a traffic control signal rather too
> >quickly, or crossed an unbroken road separation line or overtook too
> >close to a crest, you'd be given a warning. If you actually broke the
> >road rule, you'd get an on the spot (but modest, scaled, fine). Your
> >licence could be suspended in real time, and your car shut down on 5
> >business days notice. Police could shut you down on the spot. I'd
> >abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars
> >however.
>
> Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do
> you think such control over people's lives is a good thing?

You might as well ask, 'why do you think control over thugs in the
street is a good thing?' 'Why should lunatics be kept secure from the
public?'

Freedom is a good thing. I want to maximise it. As perverse as it may
seem though, when one person's freedom comes at the expense of
another's expanding the first person's freedom does nothing for
freedom in aggregate. Indeed, if you force people to compete for
limited freedom, they might both finish up with less than if they came
to an amicable arrangement.

> All
> governments go bad sooner or later,


That's true. What I think of road safety though is unaffected by that.

> why do you want to hurry the process
> along so and make it that much worse?

The question is begged: does what I propose 'hurry this along'?

> Do you operate under the illusion
> government won't use the power against you?

What power? The government ALREADY licences vehicle use, but in a
slipshod and at times arbitrary manner, which imposes a high
compliance cost with little compliance benefit. This makes good
political sense but little sense in terms of 'the greatest good for
the greatest number'. What I propose would lower the compliance cost
and increase the scope of compliance benefits.

> Or is it because you see
> yourself as such a small person you figure that won't matter to you, as
> you'll never have political office or anything like that?

It's unlikely that I will ever hold political office, but that's
beside the point.

> Or is the joy
> more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like?

I like the vast majority of people I'm aware of, or am, at worst,
indifferent to them. I take no pleasure in the misery of others. I do
object to the behaviour of those whose self-seeking harms others, and
likewise to policies that encourage such anti-social conduct.

> Using government as
> bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of
> control freakism?
>

It's only your assertion that this amounts to 'control freakism'. I'm
not even sure what you mean by that. I don't favour unnecessarily
intrusive control over human activities. On the other hand, when human
activity stands a very serious prospect of harming the legitimate and
especially the compelling interests of others, it's clear to me that
the best thing is to take steps to foreclose such harms, if necessary,
at the expense of the discretion or personal space of those increasing
the harm. All civilised societies follow this principle, although each
draws the lines in different places. No society I'm aware of, beyond
the days of hunter gatherer existence, has every been totally
indifferent to the social behaviour of its members. Indeed, even
hunter gatherer societies have some loose rules and obligations. The
world is headed in the direction of 9 billion people by about 2050,
when one 100,000 or so years ago there were probably 4000 human
beings. How do you suppose 9 billion people can live together without
metaphorically and literally treading on each others toes? The
resources and the space for each of them to act entirely as they
pleased simply don't exist, and the attempt to approach that state
would cause enormous hardship.

So we have to find a way of reconciling the resources and the space we
have with the work that has to be done so as to provide the freedoms
we think we'd like.

> >> The war on drugs, because government cannot stand that some people dare
> >> to ingest substances it has not approved and substances it has outright
> >> banned, has killed thousands. It has destroyed neighborhoods, ruined
> >> lives, seen innocent people killed by the police because of an
> >> informant's lie or just the inability to get the correct address. The
> >> war on terror is just getting started but it's already claiming its own
> >> domestic victims as the powers government got to go after terrorists are
> >> being used to go after political opponents (banking as in the case of
> >> the NY gov, that's war on drugs too) and even common street crime or
> >> copyright violations. We should be happy the road safety war has only
> >> progressed as far as the DUI checkpoints and other idiotcy. *
> >Not the same. The right to drive a vehicle on public roads is a
> >privilege,
>
> You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible.
> Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted
> privilege.

We have a qualified right, which means it's not an absolute right.
Each of us has the absolute right to try and live another day. Life is
a *compelling* interest. Nobody ought to impinge on that right, and
each of us who asserts that right is ethically bound to come to the
assistance of those doing no more than asserting that right.

The qualified right to use the roads is a *legitimate* interest. Road
space is limited and so we must negotiate with others who also have a
legitimate claim. How do we work out who gets road space when two
people want the same piece at the same time? We have a set of rules
and usages which are ultimately enforceable by those appointed by us
for the purpose. Their job is to consistently ensure that whoever has
the more legitimate claim, gets it. That way each of us gets as much
but no more than that to which we lay legitimate claim.

> If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then
> government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people
> now believe it to be a privilege because that's what the government
> schools taught them. However, if one looks back into the history of the
> automobile, it's not a privilege, it effectively became one because of
> mass belief, but that's all it is, belief.
>
> > extended to those who make it their business not to
> >infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right.
>
> Then the infringements are where the government comes in. Not making
> something a privilege where government can tie anything it likes to the
> use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must
> take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license.

That would be stupid, and I don't propose it. It's not relevant to
road safety and wouldn't pass any fair test of utility.

> Under the
> privilege concept it can do that and much worse.
>
> > What you choose to ingest of course, really is your own business.
>
> How gracious of you. However to believe that government gets to watch
> where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted
> tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible.

Well if you don't fancy that, you can always take the bus, or the
train, or ride a bike, or walk, or car pool, or take a taxi and
totally avoid the big bad government.

> That sort of watching
> and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the
> movie, "Refer Maddness"?

Yes ... nasty

> Look at why drugs needed to be controled. It
> wasn't only because people would poison themselves.
>

Of course not.

> >> >But of course, there's no political advantage to reducing road trauma
> >> >is there?
> >> Same political advantage there is with the war on drugs and the war on
> >> terror. And the war on the people under the guise of road safety has
> >> taken similiar lines as being for the children etc and so forth.
> >> Government increases its size and power through each of them.
> >Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling
> >divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources
> >is one of them.
>
> Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best.

That's a sweeping generalisation. Sure there's no shortage of examples
of inefficient and ineffective and at times corrupt government
provision, but business is every bit as likely to misdirect resources.
While it's probable that retail goods and services are probably best
organised by resort to the usages of markets, even these require a
degree of state oversight, if only to protect consumers from shoddy
and at times dangerous merchandise and services. And would you really
want emergency services run by private businesses? That was tried with
fire fighters in ancient Rome. The results weren't great.

The odd thing is that if all roads were privatised, you'd very
probably have people charging for all usages. Right now, roads are a
kind of middle class welfare.

> It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices,
> corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts
> to manage ends up like that.
>

No, it doesn't.

> > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that
> > simple.
>
> government screws everything it touches up.

<sigh> oh here we go ... right wing populist rant ...

> Of course the answer is
> always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing
> bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of
> course is to give the fed more control!

Well duh ... they left credit providers to make up the rules as they
went along, and now they can't work out how to put 1.7 trillion or so
of doubtful quality debt back onto bank balance sheets without scaring
everyone into hiding from the fall out.

So now they are stuck with handing out even cheaper money precisely
because they don't want the backwash of letting everyone go toe to toe
on who owes whom what.

Had they regulated these markets effectively, there wouldn't be the
uncertainty that now exists and the proportion of bad debts and whose
they were would be plain.

> You're using the same logic.
> It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results.
> More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off
> following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls
> and enforcement.

Safety on the roads is only partly related to have safe vehicles and
safe road design. It's also about how many people are using the road,
and how intensively. That's why during a recession, road trauma
declines by a lot more than even the best designed road safety
campaign. People stop using their cars. Given that the realtionship
between traffic volumes and road trauma is logarithmic, reducing road
usage and closely regulating the road usage you have in real time
gives you enormous safety payback. You change the culture around road
usage to one based on safety and efficiency rather than some mad
expression of commuter angst or the man on horseback conquering the
west.

Everyone wins then.

Fran

In article >, Fran wrote:

>> I am not sure what you are getting at. The war on drugs and the war on
>> terror is rather intrusive, much of it unseen to most people, but once
>> you experience it the intrusiveness is quite obvious. Or maybe you meant
>> the ones for road usage aren't... to that, they are more than bad
>> enough.

>Neither. I was saying that a lot more resources are devoted to
>prosecuting the 'war on drugs" or "the war on terror" than on policies
>that would reduce road trauma.

Both those have been far more effective in destroying the protection of
our rights. That's not to say the would be police state has not been
attacking road use, because it has. The checkpoints can make anyone who
grew up in the 80s feel like the US lost the cold war.

>> >> Do you really want to have a
>> >> TSA type checkpoint to pass through on your drive to work or to the
>> >> supermarket? *

>> >Personally, I'd favour a road usage charge that was based on the tare
>> >of your car, its emissions, the traffic volumes at the time of usage,
>> >your driving skill and risk profile, the risk profile of your vehicle
>> >and the availability of transport alternatives along your route(s).

>> Nice little control freak world there. Soon only the favored people of
>> the government get to drive and you have to wait 15 years and befriend
>> and bribe the right people to have a chance at permission.
>
>There's absolutely nothing to stop that happening right now, aside
>from the fact that most people wouldn't put up with it. Actually, if
>you think about it, it makes perfect sense from a market perspective.

Heaven forbid people don't want to be treated like slaves or livestock!

>Instead of paying large lumps of money to cover third party insurance,

That's because of the insurance lobby.

>and road taxes for vehicles that are heavier than yours and do more
>damage or based on vehicles that are taking up scarce but luxuriantly
>maintained road space while you're driving on some potholed low
>traffic road, you pay according to what you use and your risk to
>others. If you don't drive much, or drive off peak, or use a car that
>is fuel economical or are an excellent law-abiding driver, then you
>should pay less than someone who isn't.

Law-abiding... nobody driving a motor vehicle on the road is
law-abiding. Why? Because the laws are set up such that everyone is a
violator. First they post the speed limit so low that almost every
driver exceeds it, then there are a variety of laws regarding impeding
traffic and profiles of criminals and DUI drivers that driving the speed
limit or less makes one fit. Just the other night I was driving under
the posted limit and picked up yet another officer trailing me, running
my plate.

>Another advantage is that every car that gets off the road creates
>more spavce for those on the road, improving the safety and amenity of
>the roads for those who don't have good alternatives. Sure, you pay
>more per unit of distance, but you get a better quality service, and
>your car suffers less wear and tear, and your vehicle's property
>insurance charge declines. You get some of your time back each day,
>and time, as they say, is money.

It doesn't work that way. Instead it just costs more and the congestion
is worse. What you controlers don't realize is that most of the trips
are not optional. That congestion by itself is more than enough
encouragement to move optional trips to other times of the day or not
take them at all. Driving has to be made to really suck for someone to
take a complicated three hour transit trip instead of what is now a one
hour drive.
>> >Some concession could be made for where you live. Your driving
>> >behaviour would be tracked in real time, and when you threatened to
>> >exceed speed limits or approached a traffic control signal rather too
>> >quickly, or crossed an unbroken road separation line or overtook too
>> >close to a crest, you'd be given a warning. If you actually broke the
>> >road rule, you'd get an on the spot (but modest, scaled, fine). Your
>> >licence could be suspended in real time, and your car shut down on 5
>> >business days notice. Police could shut you down on the spot. I'd
>> >abolish all other charges on road usage or fuel or taxes on cars
>> >however.
>>
>> Even more control freakism. What drives you people? Seriously, why do
>> you think such control over people's lives is a good thing?

>You might as well ask, 'why do you think control over thugs in the
>street is a good thing?' 'Why should lunatics be kept secure from the
>public?'

Thugs on the street? The only thugs on the street I know of are the ones
with a government issued badge. They are the ones out there shaking
people down for money. There is the occasional and rare car jacking,
I've never seen one of those... I have seen countless incidents of
police robbing motorists on the side of the road.

>Freedom is a good thing. I want to maximise it. As perverse as it may
>seem though, when one person's freedom comes at the expense of
>another's expanding the first person's freedom does nothing for
>freedom in aggregate. Indeed, if you force people to compete for
>limited freedom, they might both finish up with less than if they came
>to an amicable arrangement.

How 1984 of you. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, yadda yadda. The
rules of the road already govern that. Central control telling people
where and when they may drive is not freedom.

>> All
>> governments go bad sooner or later,

>That's true. What I think of road safety though is unaffected by that.

It's difficult to have revolution when you can't assemble. It's hard to
assemble when you can't travel freely.

>> why do you want to hurry the process
>> along so and make it that much worse?

>The question is begged: does what I propose 'hurry this along'?

The controling of our movements.

>> Do you operate under the illusion
>> government won't use the power against you?

>What power? The government ALREADY licences vehicle use, but in a
>slipshod and at times arbitrary manner, which imposes a high
>compliance cost with little compliance benefit. This makes good
>political sense but little sense in terms of 'the greatest good for
>the greatest number'. What I propose would lower the compliance cost
>and increase the scope of compliance benefits.

There is no benefit to government control except to the controlers. I
do notice that you think more control is justified by the fact there is
already some control. Sorry, but that does not fly. This 'greater good'
thing of yours has been used to justify all sorts of evil and government
control over centuries.

>> Or is the joy
>> more perverse, sticking it to people you don't like?

>I like the vast majority of people I'm aware of, or am, at worst,
>indifferent to them. I take no pleasure in the misery of others. I do
>object to the behaviour of those whose self-seeking harms others, and
>likewise to policies that encourage such anti-social conduct.

Anti-social conduct.... ahh that term so used in the UK to justify
cameras everywhere. I've come to learn that term is just used for people
that are not liked. People who refuse to join in and go with the herd is
enough to be labeled anti-social. the 'harm' to others is usually some
sort of over reaching stretch as well. The rules of the road already
govern the interaction on the roads in a fair manner, or at least they
did before control freaks started messing with them. No new laws or
controls are required, merely restoring the rules of the road, first by
making them respectable again by forcing government to set speed limits
and light timings per best known engineering practices.

>> Using government as
>> bully against people you don't care for? What drives this sort of
>> control freakism?

>It's only your assertion that this amounts to 'control freakism'. I'm
>not even sure what you mean by that. I don't favour unnecessarily
>intrusive control over human activities.

Could have sworn you were favoring a control grid where the government
tracked and monitored everyone's travel and restricted it as it sought
fit.

?On the other hand, when human
>activity stands a very serious prospect of harming the legitimate and
>especially the compelling interests of others, it's clear to me that
>the best thing is to take steps to foreclose such harms, if necessary,
>at the expense of the discretion or personal space of those increasing
>the harm. All civilised societies follow this principle, although each
>draws the lines in different places. No society I'm aware of, beyond
>the days of hunter gatherer existence, has every been totally
>indifferent to the social behaviour of its members. Indeed, even
>hunter gatherer societies have some loose rules and obligations. The
>world is headed in the direction of 9 billion people by about 2050,
>when one 100,000 or so years ago there were probably 4000 human
>beings. How do you suppose 9 billion people can live together without
>metaphorically and literally treading on each others toes? The
>resources and the space for each of them to act entirely as they
>pleased simply don't exist, and the attempt to approach that state
>would cause enormous hardship.

>So we have to find a way of reconciling the resources and the space we
>have with the work that has to be done so as to provide the freedoms
>we think we'd like.

It's called the rules of the road. It's rather very simple. It doesn't
not require number plate scanners, tracking, permissions of movements,
oppressive taxation of movement, or anything else of the kind. All it
takes is not monkeying with it for government control or profit. Once
the system is perverted for those purposes people no longer see it as
being about the fair use of a resource, but rather government's game to
steal money from them.

>> You use the words 'right' and 'privilege' together. They incompatible.
>> Either we have a right to use the roads or it is a government granted
>> privilege.

>We have a qualified right, which means it's not an absolute right.
>Each of us has the absolute right to try and live another day. Life is
>a *compelling* interest. Nobody ought to impinge on that right, and
>each of us who asserts that right is ethically bound to come to the
>assistance of those doing no more than asserting that right.

>The qualified right to use the roads is a *legitimate* interest. Road
>space is limited and so we must negotiate with others who also have a
>legitimate claim. How do we work out who gets road space when two
>people want the same piece at the same time? We have a set of rules
>and usages which are ultimately enforceable by those appointed by us
>for the purpose. Their job is to consistently ensure that whoever has
>the more legitimate claim, gets it. That way each of us gets as much
>but no more than that to which we lay legitimate claim.

The more legitimate claim... some people are just more equal that others
in your universe. No wonder the rules of the road, the simple rules of
right of way that go about bringing equal access are not enough for you.
I've sorry, I don't want to have to lobby local government just so I can
get from point A to B. Your system makes every trip something that
government has to approve. Government isn't fair, just, or anything
else. There is no 'claim' to the road, no joe's trip is more legitimate
than bob's. The simple rules of right of way are all that is needed. Not
central control deciding who gets to go where and when.

>> If it is really the later and I don't believe it is, then
>> government can tie anything it likes to the privilege. Of course people
>> now believe it to be a privilege because that's what the government
>> schools taught them. However, if one looks back into the history of the
>> automobile, it's not a privilege, it effectively became one because of
>> mass belief, but that's all it is, belief.
>>
>> > extended to those who make it their business not to
>> >infringe the safety of others. It's not every person's right.

>> Then the infringements are where the government comes in. Not making
>> something a privilege where government can tie anything it likes to the
>> use of the road. Just think, maybe the government decides that one must
>> take a loyalty oath to GWB to get a driver's license.

>That would be stupid, and I don't propose it. It's not relevant to
>road safety and wouldn't pass any fair test of utility.

Government doesn't care about tests of utility. It will already take a
DL if someone owes child support under the privilege concept. It's the
privilege concept that your proposed control grid of the state deciding
who's trips are more legitimate functions under. The privilege concept
can easily be used for loyalty oaths and much worse.

>> How gracious of you. However to believe that government gets to watch
>> where we go, when, with who, by what path and all the other assorted
>> tracking and controls you suggest is incompatible.

>Well if you don't fancy that, you can always take the bus, or the
>train, or ride a bike, or walk, or car pool, or take a taxi and
>totally avoid the big bad government.

bus, train, air travel, etc are all subject to ID checks, searches, etc
under the 'war on terror'.
Walking and biking are anti-social, its not what the herd does. The
last time I was stopped by police and searched was walking home with
my dinner, so don't tell me walking is free of government
interference. Plus there have been calls to track bicyclists. Once
government gets a taste of tracking it won't permit anything it cannot
track.
Taxis are also very controled by government regulation. It would be
trivial to force an ID check and tracking there as well.


>> That sort of watching
>> and control is what is behind the logic of the drug war. Ever see the
>> movie, "Refer Maddness"?

>Yes ... nasty

That's the argument you are making for road controls. People will go
wild and hurt others.... It's the refer madness argument more or less.

>> >Some things are best done by the government -- and reconciling
>> >divergent and conflicting claims over scarce and essential resources
>> >is one of them.

>> Um, no it's not. The political process does not allocate resources best.

>That's a sweeping generalisation. Sure there's no shortage of examples
>of inefficient and ineffective and at times corrupt government
>provision, but business is every bit as likely to misdirect resources.

There is no shortage of it, because it occurs every time.
Show me one instance where government hasn't mismanaged something it has
taken control over? There isn't an single instance I can think of. Not
one.


>While it's probable that retail goods and services are probably best
>organised by resort to the usages of markets, even these require a
>degree of state oversight, if only to protect consumers from shoddy
>and at times dangerous merchandise and services.

The best protection is research, the internet makes that pretty easy
these days. Most government product and business regulation is actually
designed to stifle competition. That is one business or group of
buisnesses, sometimes worker groups, lobby government to put in controls
that are harmful to the competition. That will drive the competition out
of business. One recent example is the animal ID act. This act is a huge
burden on the small farmers that is favored by the big corporate farming
companies. The FDA is even worse by making it illegal for
someone to get treatments they want. Government decides what is best for
you, not you. Government regulation is a tool to drive your competition
out of business, it doesn't really offer consumer protection.

> And would you really
>want emergency services run by private businesses? That was tried with
>fire fighters in ancient Rome. The results weren't great.

However, when it comes to wild fires in CA, the private services are the
ones saving homes while the public resources just decide who's home they
are going to save and which ones they'll let burn. Someone out there
would be silly not to have insurance that doesn't contract with private
fire fighters.

>The odd thing is that if all roads were privatised, you'd very
>probably have people charging for all usages. Right now, roads are a
>kind of middle class welfare.

If roads were privatized there would need to be competing systems.
Instead what we would see in the US would be government granted
monopolies.

>> It results in mismanagement, shortages, long lines, high prices,
>> corruption, theft, and other horrors. Every resource government attempts
>> to manage ends up like that.

>No, it doesn't.

Name where it hasn't. That's going to be a short list. The last attempt
in the US were nixon's price controls and other nonsense that resulted
in gas lines.

>> > The ways in which people get from A to B demand oversight. It's that
>> > simple.

>> government screws everything it touches up.

><sigh> oh here we go ... right wing populist rant ...

Name something it hasn't screwed up? BTW, the 'right wing' in the US is
just another set of big government control freaks.

>> Of course the answer is
>> always more government intervention.... Federal reserve causes a housing
>> bubble with all its cheap money and then the bubble bursts the answer of
>> course is to give the fed more control!

>Well duh ... they left credit providers to make up the rules as they
>went along, and now they can't work out how to put 1.7 trillion or so
>of doubtful quality debt back onto bank balance sheets without scaring
>everyone into hiding from the fall out.

Um... the federal reserve fixes interest rates. It caused the problem.
Fractional reserve banking and fiat money is the problem. It is what
requires the the control. Real money and allowing the idiots who loan
poorly to go broke is the only effective control. And, it was your
government regulation that encouraged, even forced the bad loans.
Remember, if you didn't loan to deadbeats that made you racist, etc and
so forth.

>So now they are stuck with handing out even cheaper money precisely
>because they don't want the backwash of letting everyone go toe to toe
>on who owes whom what.
>Had they regulated these markets effectively, there wouldn't be the
>uncertainty that now exists and the proportion of bad debts and whose
>they were would be plain.

The answer to government screw ups is more government! The regulation
and interference made things worse so the answer is more regulation and
intereference. The answer is always more control when attempts at
control don't work out. It's absurd. We are all poorer for it.

Government protects the privileged, the connected at the expense of the
disconnected. Government protects the big banks and other interests that
give the right people money at the expense of the many. That's how
government regulation and control works. That's what you are seeing
right now with your calls for more control.

>> You're using the same logic.
>> It's insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results.
>> More government intervention is not the answer. We'd be better off
>> following the safety based engineering principles instead of controls
>> and enforcement.

>Safety on the roads is only partly related to have safe vehicles and
>safe road design. It's also about how many people are using the road,
>and how intensively. That's why during a recession, road trauma
>declines by a lot more than even the best designed road safety
>campaign. People stop using their cars. Given that the realtionship
>between traffic volumes and road trauma is logarithmic, reducing road
>usage and closely regulating the road usage you have in real time
>gives you enormous safety payback. You change the culture around road
>usage to one based on safety and efficiency rather than some mad
>expression of commuter angst or the man on horseback conquering the
>west.
>
>Everyone wins then.

No most everyone loses. The connected win. The elites win. The masses
lose. We get to pay more and more but are permitted to do less and less.
Instead of being free we become subject to control.

Seriously, you people will be sorry you let government take all that
control, all that power.