Body Count No. 2 | |
| What NHTSA says: "From 55 mph to 65 mph, there is a 100 percent increase in carbon-monoxide emissions, 50 percent increase in hydrocarbons, and 31 percent increase in nitrogen oxides." Source: NHTSA State Legislative Fact Sheet | |
| The facts: NHTSA used the EPA's Mobile computer model for atmospheric air quality. On the question of speed, it simply regurgitates the assumptions written into the model. A 1996 3.5-liter Dodge Intrepid emits less than 1 percent of the federal limits for CO, HC, and NOx at 65 mph. Source: Chrysler Corporation | |
|
| The map reader runs the red light and T-bones the speeding driver. NHTSA blames speed. |
By using the "conditions" above to trigger the too-fast code, even when the police on the scene did not indicate speeding, the feds are merely trying to quantify the "too fast for conditions" part of code 44. But the process goes beyond imprecision. This is garbage in.
Example: On a "weather" day, Car A is traveling at 35 mph in a 45-mph zone. As it passes through an intersection, it is T-boned by Car B, which ran a stop sign. Car B was also going 35 mph in a 45.
According to NHTSA procedure, the weather makes this a speed-related crash, even though neither car was speeding and the cause was entirely due to Car B running the stop sign.
By this definition, our search of the FARS database finds that 30 percent of the fatal crashes were speed related in 1994, the most recent year for which data are available.
NHTSA likes to inflate that body count as much as it can, however. We discovered one of its inflators while reading "Beyond the Limits: A Law Enforcement Guide to Speed Enforcement," a NHTSA publication dated February 1992. It states, "In 1990, speed too fast for conditions and other speed-related factors were reported as contributing factors in 34 percent of all fatal crashes [emphasis added]." Then it goes on to list the other factors: "Improper lane changes, following too closely, unsafe passing, inattention, reckless driving, high-speed chase, erratic/ changing speeds, and driving slower than posted minimums."
"Inattention" is a speed-related factor? Following too closely? Unsafe passing? You have to admit, inflating a statistic with drivers proceeding too slowly and then using it to beat up on speeders is a stylish touch. And that's what happens. In NHTSA publications, the idea of "speed related" in one paragraph becomes "speeding" in the next, as in, "Few drivers view speeding as an immediate risk to their personal safety."
How much inflation is there between actual "speeding" and "speed related" in FARS? Here's one estimate: In 1994, 30 percent of fatal crashes were said to be speed related, but elsewhere in FARS we find that less than 1 percent of the drivers involved were charged with speeding (about 1.5 percent if you lump together both speeding and speeding under the influence of alcohol or drugs). Of course, some drivers didn't survive the crash to be ticketed, but 56 percent did. Wouldn't you expect more tickets if speeding over the limit were an important contributor to fatalities?
The top dozen or so related factors (listed by driver, not by crash) appear in table 61 of Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA's annual summary of safety statistics. For every year in the 1990s, "Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road" is first; about 28 percent of drivers involved in fatals made that mistake. Second, at about 21 percent, is "Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted maximum." No other factors have more than a single-digit share. "Failure to yield right of way" is usually third at 9 percent, then "Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.)" at 7 percent.
Tracking factors that may contribute to crashes is a perfectly reasonable idea. But the fundamental imprecision of inputs must be kept in mind, and the results shouldn't be sold for more than they're worth. NHTSA is consistently deceitful on this point.
What the widely circulated table 61 does not say, but is plainly stated on lists of related factors circulated at NHTSA, is the following caveat: "Caution: These are not causes of the accident, but factors that are reported by the police that may have played a role in the accident."
Now we know something of importance. Related factors are not considered to be causes of fatal accidents by the people who collect the information.
Body Count No. 3 | |
| What NHTSA says: "One-third of the health-care costs of motor-vehicle crash injuries are paid by tax dollars." Source: NHTSA State Legislative Fact Sheet | The facts: A single study concluded that "government sponsored" patients consumed 29 percent of all medical costs resulting from crashes. Among the study's many flaws, it looked at only five unrepresentative states, and it ignored the costs of all (about three million) injured who did not require hospitalization. Then came the rounding-up errors, first from 29 percent to $3 out of every $10, then to one-third of all costs. Source: NHTSA report DOT HS 807 800 |
This agrees with common sense. Driving fast, by itself, is no reason to crash. The overwhelming majority of speed-related crashes, 89 percent of them, are also related to something else. If NHTSA had a different agenda, these could just as accurately be attributed to the other factor.
The most common pairing is "run off road/lane" and "too fast"; 39 percent of drivers who ran out of road or lane were also listed as driving too fast.
We must ask, too, does this section on related factors give proper weight to the influence of alcohol and drugs? Let's go back to the previous example of Car A and Car B on a "weather" day, both traveling under the speed limit. This time let's say both drivers are legally drunk. Does that change the classification of this crash?
The answer is no. This is still a speed-related crash. Alcohol and drugs do not even appear in the related-factor tabulation. All the "too fast" drivers could be drunk, and table 61 wouldn't tell us.
FARS does allow related factors to be cross-referenced against charges filed. Of the drivers in fatals in 1994 with "too fast" as a related factor, 79 percent had no charges filed against them and 7.1 percent were charged with alcohol or drugs.
Even if we could separate the influence of alcohol and drugs from "too fast," this related factor has a fundamental ambiguity that limits its usefulness. That's because the category lumps together both speeding over the limit and speed too fast for conditions. No amount of teasing will separate them in the database because they are married on the original entry form under the same code 44.
In the real world, though, these are very different concepts. Speeding over the limit, in theory at least, is a behavioral problem subject to law enforcement. "Too fast for conditions" is a judgment problem much harder to enforce. In fact, the police don't even attempt to enforce it, except by enforcing speed limits that are ridiculously low. The radar-detector industry owes its livelihood to this approach.
