 |
 |
 |
|
TO THE POINT None for the road Since safety is intrinsic to our business, we must work toward reducing highway accidents By Emanuel Levy There was a popular riddle years ago that was an attempt at sardonic humor. It went something like this: “What mechanical part of an automobile is responsible for the most accidents on the road?” The answer was: “It’s the nut that holds the wheel.” And that answer, facetious or not, has been perhaps the most accurate description of the tragedy of the motor vehicle almost from the first days that the rubber hit the road. Maybe what is needed, in the midst of all the advertising of cars that appears in this country, is a short message, even subliminally, urging car owners to drive with care. And not to drink and drive. It will probably never happen. According to a recent report by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, a division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (www.nhtsa.gov), there were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004, representing 39% of the total of traffic deaths in that year. Putting it in another way, the agency said that in 2004 an alcohol-related fatality on American roads and highways occurred every 31 minutes. The report defines “alcohol-related” with respect to a motor vehicle crash, as involving at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or cyclist) involved and a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter. That’s a minuscule amount of alcohol in view of the fact that the legal limits for driving in 45 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in 2004, is .08 grams per deciliter. That makes it clear that NHTSA considers even a small amount of alcohol in the blood as impairment. Total traffic fatalities—alcohol-related and others—averaged more than 40,000 each year between 1983 to 2002, according to the Insurance Information Institute’s 2004 Fact Book. The year 2001 was the highest at 42,815. Think of all the mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, grandparents and children represented by those 420,000 fatalities over that 10-year period. Realistically, this personal tragedy should catapult the public-at-large and the millions who drive, including the professionals, out of their seeming tolerance of this massacre. And death is not all. The phenomenal number of injuries and suffering, the property losses, the cost and time consumption of emergency services, the litigation, the cost of insurance, et al., should rouse public attention to the pandemic of road and highway mishaps. The only saving grace in this mayhem is that insurance was probably there in most of the cases. The brokers, agents and insurers should take a bow. The integrity of the service to the public never lags, even though it is not always appreciated. There is no intention here to diminish the efforts of lawmakers, regulators and public service organizations, including those of insurance producers, companies and service organizations, to curtail the havoc of motor vehicle accidents. Many local, state and federal legislatures adopt statutes covering virtually every aspect of driving, cycling and walking; but often human nature, including anti-social actions and individual arrogance that includes unwillingness to abide by laws or reason, creates unlimited exposure to danger from the moment the ignition key is turned on. To measure the extent of efforts by state legislatures and regulatory authorities, I recommend that interested members of the industry, particularly relevant associations, review one of the listings on the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) Web site (www.madd.org). It provides a comprehensive tabulation of traffic laws, state-by-state, with observations on the quality of enforcement, recommendations for amendments or additions to existing laws, and other extremely significant data. As most auto insurance people are aware, MADD was founded years ago by a woman whose young daughter was killed by a drunk driver. While she is no longer associated with the organization, MADD continues the battle. It is one of the most aggressive combatants, and a highly effective fund raiser. At least one community plans to strike a personal blow against the drunk driver. Michael Cardigan, an Albuquerque, New Mexico, city councilor, has proposed a public humiliation program which calls for the publication of the names and photos of people convicted of drunken driving. A story about this approach, which may have been tried before in some other locations, ran in the February 22, 2006, edition of Albuquerque Journal. In an interview, the city official likened his idea to the “scarlet letter,” asserting that it is designed to embarrass and humiliate the DWI offenders. Cardigan said that the names and photographs would be provided to the news media and would appear on the city’s Web site. He also told the newspaper that he knew “folks for whom it has been life-changing.” He said that they “get serious about designated drivers. They get serious about whether they have a drinking problem, or they avoid parties with lots of alcohol.” While not opposed to the statute, Assistant City Attorney Stan Harada is quoted as raising doubts about the effectiveness of shame as a deterrent. Some may take it to heart, he said, but “other people, they just don’t care.” He added that “we have a lot of these repeat offenders—they think they should have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to.” The state’s MADD executive director, Terry Huertaz, told the newspaper that there is insufficient evidence that shame deters drunk driving, but she said she was pleased to see that leadership is looking into the matter. MADD credits itself with changing attitudes toward drunk driving; and as determined by NHTSA, alcohol-related fatalities did decline from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,694 in 2004. It would be difficult to award credit to a single source, however. MADD maintains that it is responsible, but detractors offer other explanations. It is important to note that the organization has chapters in every state, Guam, Puerto Rico, Canada and other countries. Perhaps everyone is right. If so, we need to continue the efforts, pinpointing the best and improving the best, if possible. The decline in deaths, as noted by NHTSA, has been cited in an article on the Internet, posted by Wilkipedia, “the free encyclopedia,” as being even more noteworthy because the U.S. population and the number of drivers has increased substantially in the past 23 years. In addition, but not mentioned in the data source, so has miles of travel. The observation has also been made that the number of alcohol-related deaths attributed to drunk drivers may be skewed, inasmuch as the definition includes fatalities where sober drivers happen to have drunken passengers, or where a sober driver hits an intoxicated pedestrian. Seat belts While it is generally acknowledged that drunk driving is the major element in highway fatalities (and probably non-fatal as well) our streets and highways have enough other problems. These are not secret but are perhaps more difficult to categorize. In its mission statement, NHTSA points to its Research and Evaluation program that deals with behaviors and attitudes. Failure of drivers to fasten seat belts results in unnecessary deaths and injuries. NHTSA cited a statistic that in 2002, 59% of those killed in accidents were not wearing seat belts. The agency reported that in 2005, safety belt use in the U.S. ranged from 60.8% use in Mississippi to 95.3% in Hawaii. The figures are based on surveys during the year, which found that nine states and territories use rates of 90% or higher. It was also noted that use rates are higher in jurisdictions with stronger belt enforcement laws, such as the authority of police to stop cars where seat belts are not fastened (primary statutes), as contrasted with jurisdictions that permit action only when a vehicle is stopped for some another violation. Specific data on state-by-state usage is available. In addition to the very informative Web sites of MADD and NHTSA, another valuable site that can be used by associations in working toward improvements in automobile safety, is Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (www.saferoads.org). It offers data by state, on safety laws that need enactment. Hand-held phones A few states have enacted laws to bar the use of hand-held cell phones. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reported earlier this year that an estimated 10% of drivers on American roads are using some type of cell phone or communication device at any given time. Citing data from NHTSA, the foundation said that as of June 30, 2005, only New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia had laws on the books banning hand-held cell phone use when driving. This is an area where the insurance industry may wish to do some probing to see if it might be a worthwhile issue to pursue legislatively. The same caution goes to drivers with passengers who engage in two-handed conversations. As to behavior, it is probably impossible to control the road rager, the overconfident/non-signaling lane changer, the dreamer and the sleeper. Speeding is also a major problem, but that is not limited to high numbers on the speedometer, it also relates to speeds inappropriate for road and traffic conditions. In an address to the Washington Automotive Press Association, Dr. Jeffrey Range, administrator for NHTSA, said he was puzzled that the “public health crisis” of the large, continuing and pervasive annual highway death crisis does not create a sense of public outrage. He continues to be right. It’s impossible to fathom. Many people continue to have fear of flying even though air crashes are a rarity, but there is little hesitancy about getting into a car. Here is a story that makes the point: Reporter to airline pilot: “What is the most dangerous part of your job?” Pilot to reporter: “Driving to the airport.” Obviously, safety issues are intrinsic to the insurance business. Virtually everyone driving a car is a customer, probably a friend of long standing. That’s why the insurance business should make every effort to work with the legislators and regulators to reduce the highway health crisis. The business has a high standing in government and should not hesitate to use it for the public welfare. * |
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
