What's the book corporate America doesn't want you to read? Find out now -- or you could get scammed.

If traffic fatalities just hit a record low then why is Ray LaHood unhappy?

March 11, 2010

First, the good news: The government this morning announced that the number of overall traffic fatalities reported at the end of 2009 reached the lowest level since 1954, a new record.

Now the bad news: The boss is still unhappy.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dismissed the results in a blog post this morning:

I am … disturbed that we are still talking about nearly 34,000 preventable deaths a year. There are still too many people dying in traffic accidents every year. Just too many.


What’s not to be happy about?

Traffic fatalities declined for the 15th consecutive quarter, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The projected fatality data for 2009 places the highway death count at 33,963, a drop of 8.9 percent as compared to the 37,261 deaths reported in 2008, according to the government.

The fatality rate for 2009 declined to the lowest on record, to 1.16 fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) down from 1.25 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2008.

Any way you look at these numbers, they’re great news for the American motorist. Simply put, our roads have never been safer.

But holding up a “Mission Accomplished” banner might endanger LaHood’s pet project on distracted driving — a project we’d all be wise to support, by the way.

Then again, maybe LaHood can’t leave well enough alone.

We will be breaking down the numbers over the next few months to see where we have the best opportunities to reduce the number of traffic deaths even further. Because, although these numbers are moving in the right direction, we won’t rest while there are still deaths on America’s roads.

It would be nice to see that kind of zeal applied to consumer protections for airline passengers.

The DOT has signaled an interest in standing up for the rights of air travelers by increasing enforcement of existing regulations and creating new rules that would help passengers. But it still has a long way to go.

What do I mean? Well, try booking an airline ticket online, and you’ll see. Disclosure of a full ticket price is lax. Airlines continue to lure us in with a low base fare and then pile on the extras for everything from checked luggage to the ability to reserve a seat.

I hope that disturbs Ray LaHood. Something tells me it does.

(Photo: johnnypinball/Flickr Creative Commons)

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

Tagged as: , , ,

15 comments

  • SpotLight

    This is simply the basis for a made-up “emergency” situation that can only be “solved” by increasing gasoline taxes by $2 per gallon.

  • Mike

    Part of the reason the feds can help reduce deaths is that they have help of the states. They withhold money from states for road and bridge building or safety forces unless they meet certain mandates. Nearly all states now have an intoxication level at .08 where it used to be .10. The states that were hesitant to comply only did so in order to continue recieving hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts.

    Airlines and airport safety on the other hand are solely (at least it seems) in place and regulates by the federal govt and as such they have no local or state help in enforcing the policies or even coming up with methods on how to best secure each local airport facility. Certainly, the task of securing an airport like JFK is a bit different than even an airport like salt Lake City.

  • KathyJ

    “But holding up a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner might endanger LaHood’s pet project on distracted driving — a project we’d all be wise to support, by the way.”

    Wow, talk about interpreting the numbers to suit one’s personal agenda.

    By responding quickly I narrowly avoided crashing into a driver who pulled out in front of me. Amazingly, I was the one on the phone! Therefore I’ve seen it’s not whether you are on the phone or adjusting the radio or eating french fries or talking to someone in the car, or anything else objective. The issue is whether right at that moment you personally can handle that AND whatever road conditions you are facing. Unfortunately that’s not objective and so it can’t be put into a clear-cut law. But I do not like the idea of making a blanket law that prevents everyone from doing any of those things regardless of the circumstances. What about the number of times an accident doesn’t happen, which is far greater?

    Yes, people have accidents and people even die. And yes, if you cannot handle the extra activity and you cause an accident, you should be held accountable for that. But it’s unreasonable to suppose we can legislate away all of life’s risks.

  • Rich

    Anything LaHood says is aimed at laying the ground work to raise revenue by a national automated camera enforcement system. “If it saves one life….” and raises billions for the cash-strapped treasury… it must be a good idea.

  • Roberto

    If I had to guess, I’d guess that the decrease in fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled has more to do with higher vehicle safety standards than anything else.

    If I had to be in an accident, you can bet I’d want to be in a vehicle with front and side airbags, crumple zones, ABS, etc. A ton of work has gone into making cars protect their occupants better, and now we are seeing the fruits of this.

  • Nicole

    A friend in law enforcement once told me “98% of the people on the road just point their cars and go.” This is so true and something we are all guilty of at one time or another. We often drive distracted–whether by phones, food or simply our own wandering thoughts. We all need to take driving more seriously. Would any of us handle a gun with the same level of distraction that we drive with?

    What really bothers me is the intentional violation of the rules of the road such as tailgating, failure to yield, etc. I see people everyday who believe they are too important or in too much of a hurry to obey the traffic laws. Examples: backing up on an interstate, because they missed the exit; driving around a car stopping at a traffic light that has turned yellow, even if this means crossing the yellow lines. If we can’t enforce these simple traffic laws, we’ll never be able to take on distracted driving.

    In Europe, driving is seen as a privilege, not a right, and often an expensive privilege at that. One European idea that I like is to make the fees for traffic violations a percentage of the violators income, rather than a set amount.

    On a side note to KathyJ: You avoided an accident that was in front of you. IMHO, being on the phone while driving give you tunnel vision. The next time you are on the phone while driving, notice how many times you check your side and rear view mirrors. Ask yourself, how long has that car been behind me? Where did the last car that was behind me go? Did it turn off or is it in my blind spot? Doing that convinced me that driving and hands-on cell phones do not mix.

  • Steve

    On the subject of traffic safety: I think what a lot of people aren’t willing to address is that in the name of automobile travel being a reasonably efficient mode of transportation, there will always be some deaths that one could argue are preventable. You know what would drastically reduce that 34,000 number? Raise the driving age to 25. Require every driver to undergo extremely intensive training before being licensed (I’m thinking along the lines of airline pilots, here). Lower the legal blood alcohol level to 0.00. Reduce the maximum speed limit to 35 mph, and make any speeding violation punishable by jail time. I bet traffic deaths would plummet by 90%. Of course, it would also bring our economy and our way of life to a screeching halt. Like everything else in life, it’s a trade-off.

    As for the insinuation that the real problem we’re facing is that airlines have unbundled fees, I find that laughable. Of all the things airlines do, including not living up to their own contracts of carriage, blaming mechanical delays on the weather, etc, I don’t think unbundling of fees or supposedly difficult to understand pricing is even in the top ten of shady practices. My experience has been that when I do a search online for airfares, it’s pretty easy to see what my total base cost (the fare plus required fees/taxes) will be. Fees for checking a bag or the like are optional, and if I plan to check a bag I’ll factor that in myself. Should the airlines also provide a “base” quote that includes the cost of a couple alcoholic beverages onboard, in case I might be planning on buying a drink? Or airport parking, in case I’m going to park my car there?

    I really don’t think it’s that hard to learn what an airline is charging for checked baggage and mentally add the amount (if any) you’ll be charged for what you expect to bring with you, in order to determine what you’ll actually be paying.

  • Ed

    I look at current traffic fatalities more as Darwin awards than anything else. It doesn’t take much to be safe on the road. Pay attention to your surroundings, don’t perform stupid maneuvers, and like they said in “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure”, above all, be decent to each other.
    Ed

  • Scott

    The driving age is too low and the drinking age is too high. Right now, children are taught how to drive by their parents, but are expected to learn how to handle alcohol on their own. If I wanted to teach my children how to handle alcohol, I could be prosecuted and have my children taken away, but if I drive drunk I can just pay a fine and maybe lose me license. Remove the forbidden fruit element of alcohol, let me teach my children how to handle alcohol responsibly, and throw drunk drivers in jail.

  • Karen C.

    I’d like to see what percentage of those deaths were to drivers under the age of 25 and their passengers.

    And, I agree with Nicole about the intentional violation of the laws. Aggressive driving is rampant (of course, I drive in the Boston area where you have to go at least 10 miles over the speed limit or you risk your life). I’m shocked when I drive in snowy and/or icy conditions and find I have a car right on my rear bumper and I’m not crawling as I know how to drive in the snow. Basic common sense seems to be missing for many out on the roads.

  • Chris

    The lower rates of accidents and fatalities are probably due to a number of factors including the increased use of seatbelts and the fact that cars contain more safety features than in that past. With that in mind, the numbers SHOULD drop – but they might drop a lot faster if there were fewer distracted drivers on the road. And if the rest of them followed the traffic laws and stopped using their two ton tanks as a means to best every other driver on the road, we’d be in a lot better shape.

    Cell phones and texting have GOT to go. I can think of a small handful of cases where talking while driving is imperative – and NONE where texting should be done.

    And driving should be considered a privilege – not the right to use your vehicle as a weapon to prove how much more important your time is from the rest of the world!

  • Karen K

    The lower death rates may be from people driving slower to conserve gas. Any comment by Ray LaHood may be safely interpreted to mean “Big government has a solution if only we can raise your taxes enough to pay for it.” This bunch WANTS $4.+ per gallon gas, and tiny, flimsy cars where the passengers will die when they collide with anything.

  • Philip

    The bottom line here is self-responsibility and self-discipline. I travel to class 15 miles on a major highway. I set my cruise control at just below the limit (65mpg). for safety and economy (I get 4/5 mpg more). 95% of cars whiz past me at 70/80 and even 90 miles p/h. I cringe because of the danger to others, but they are the ones who probably whine about the high price of gas.
    Tip: I stay five car lengths behind the car in front of me. And, very important, if an 18 wheeler is behind you, change lanes. With an 80,000 pd cargo,they CANNOT stop in an emergency. My last car had 247,000 miles, 12 years without an accident.
    If you cause an accident and kill someone, that’s going to be hard to live with for the rest of your life!!

  • Dave

    Instead of blanket cellphone use laws, why don’t we implement laws that penalize careless driving for any reason, be it phones, family, fries, frost, whatever. Oh, wait, we already have such laws. [cue Emily Litella voice] Never mind.

  • y_p_w

    I’ve my fair share of “what were they thinking?” behavior while driving.

    Once I was at a red light and noticed a Mercedes-Benz S-Class sedan in the lane next to me. When the light turns green he apparently wants to change lanes (not into mine) and isn’t concerned that there’s actually a car in that lane – forcing the other driver to avoid him by swerving well out of the traffic lane. Of course he was seemingly oblivious to everything but his own self-importance, and doesn’t seem to notice (as I did) the clearly marked black & white police cruiser that was stopped at the same red light. I saw the expression on the officer’s face as I went on my way, and I wasn’t sure if he was angry or just amazed that this guy didn’t even realize that there was a police cruiser 25 feet away from him when he pulled this stunt.

    Doesn’t Ray LaHood have other pressing duties to attend to, like sticky accelerator pedals and sudden acceleration with Toyotas?

Previous post:

Next post: