More Silly Numbers From AAA

March 6th, 2008 Posted in Corruption

By James Baxter, NMA President

aaa A little background: The AAA was once known as the American Automobile Association. In the first half of the 20th century it was the pre-eminent spokesman and advocate of American motorists.

The American Automobile Association championed more and better roads, rational traffic laws and fair enforcement. It even identified and campaigned against speed traps. Not remembered by many; it was the principle sanctioning body for auto races.

By the 1960’s the American Automobile Association was well into its transition from motorist advocate to insurance company.

The association had a long history with roadside assistance, a type of insurance, but not until the 60’s and 70’s did the insurance function begin to dominate its priorities. The insurance role evolved to total control in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Eventually the facade of being a motorist advocacy organization collapsed and the name was changed to “AAA,” the letters meaning whatever the observer assumed them to mean. In the era when AAA was championing the 55 MPH speed limit (like all other insurance companies) the interpretations were not complimentary.

That, abruptly, brings us to the AAA press release that hit the media yesterday. I should add, there are still a fair number of reporters and other media mavens that have not caught on to the fact that the AAA is not the American Automobile Association of old.

The press release claims that auto accidents are costing we naïve citizens a lot more money than is traffic congestion and yet the government seems much more focused on traffic congestion than it is on traffic safety. This is one of those instances where because they said it, it must be true.

In reality, it’s unvarnished nonsense.

First, the claim that auto accidents are costing society more money than congestion is based on “funny money” assumptions, made up costs, and “apples and oranges” comparisons.

Assumptions on the value of one person’s life, work place losses, and monetizing “quality of life” or “pain and suffering” are futile subjective exercises intended to prove a point, not to shed light.

Yes, there are 43,000 annual traffic related fatalities, but why not mention that the fatality rate, a more meaningful statistic, has dropped like a stone over the past three decades?

Simple. Positive news doesn’t support the insurance industry’s agenda.

Assuming that 75 percent of the population lives in urban/suburban/developed regions means that 225 million people, including 150 million drivers deal with some level of congestion on a daily basis. If it costs each person an hour each work day that’s 58 billion man hours lost to congestion. OK, only a half hour; 29 billion man hours a year. At $7 per hour that’s $203 billion dollars a year and we haven’t even started with “quality of life” or workplace losses.

If these seem like silly numbers to you I’d argue that they aren’t any sillier than saying every life lost in an auto accident cost $3,249,192.00 (they apparently rounded off the cents).

Barbara Harsha, Exec. Dir. of the Governors Highway Safety Association unintentionally stated a fact; “Traffic Accidents happen in ones and twos, and people see them as random events that don’t effect them.” Actually “the people” have it about right. For most of them, traffic accidents are random events that do not affect them in a significant manner if they are not directly involved in the accident, which is usually the case. Yes, there are auto insurance rates, but those rates largely track inflation and are driven by administrative costs and property damage claims.

Besides, when is the last time you heard about an auto insurance company being unprofitable?

Congestion is not a random event; motorists confront it almost every day they travel. It costs them time, makes them late, aggravates and irritates (probably causes plenty of heart attacks and strokes), increases fuel consumption, emissions, and vehicle wear and tear, and it causes accidents. It stands to reason that funds garnered by taxing motorists should be used to improve roadways and lessen congestion.

Suggesting that safety has been shorted resources or given a low priority is sheer political nonsense.

No single government action has done more to improve highway safety than the construction and the expansion of the Interstate System. Without these and similar limited access divided highways we would experience twice as many fatalities, if not more, than we do today.

The vast preponderance of traffic accidents are not caused by speeding, impairment, senior drivers, or being young. They are caused by distraction, inattention, and fatigue.

Passing more laws, heaping on more penalties, or hiring platoons of cops will not address these factors.

If the resources that are wasted on speed traps, ticket cameras, roadblocks, enforcement binges, and propaganda, like this study, were invested in real research, programs, and projects that addressed the real causes of most traffic accidents we might just be able to make progress toward safer AND less congested highways.

Other Related Articles


Join The Discussion: The New NMA Forums

  1. 15 Responses to “More Silly Numbers From AAA”

  2. By E. Meyers on Mar 7, 2008

    Besides being an in-efficient use of energy it creates profits for oil companies like accidents and tickets create profit for insurance companies. Must be a better way

  3. By E. Meyers on Mar 7, 2008

    CONGESTION does that….sorry

  4. By Mark J Smith on Mar 9, 2008

    I guess it’s ok that 50,000 people died last year especially since the Fatality Rate declined. We seem to have accepted the fact that we are going lose 50,000 people each year and so be it. This is outrageous, we pay billions for traffic safety each year (NHTSA and cost/auto) and we are getting very little for our money.

  5. By James Young on Mar 9, 2008

    {I guess it’s ok that 50,000 people died last year especially since the Fatality Rate declined. We seem to have accepted the fact that we are going lose 50,000 people each year and so be it. This is outrageous, we pay billions for traffic safety each year (NHTSA and cost/auto) and we are getting very little for our money.}

    While your statistics are wrong – 42,642 people died in 2006, the latest year available — your sentiment that we are getting very little for our money is spot on. That is because there is so much money to be made by focusing our efforts, resources, time and money on the wrong things. We pay LE to stop speeding and hope that it affects key safety measures; we should pay them to actually improve those measures.

  6. By Joe on Mar 9, 2008

    Well the number thrown up here sounds like a large number until taken within the context of the billions of miles driven by the millions of drivers of every driving skill level, across the entire country annually. Then the numbers begin to look pretty subtle. Throwing these big numbers up there without providing the context is always a trick used by those who want to gain from more enforcement.

    We seemed to have reached a plateau in which these numbers are not changing much in recent years despite more laws and enforcement. This fact has not gone unnoticed by groups wanting more enforcement and the resulting revenue. Here’s a snippet from a recent article by the AP.

    “In announcing the fifth-annual report by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Judith Stone, the group’s president, expressed “professional frustration” over how little has changed in recent years as the nation’s road-death statistics remain unchanged or rise. “Where’s the outrage?” Stone asked. “Enough is enough.”

    I have a theory about that. I believe we’ve reached the point of what might be called diminishing returns. A point that no matter what we do we are only going to see small incremental changes.
    Under the current circumstances I don’t see anything significant happening that will change those numbers. I probably can’t explain it but I guess I would call it the human factor, maybe something like a constant. I haven’t studied risk assessment but I surmise that there’s a point at which a given number of drivers will always error a certain percentage of the time. Out of this percentage there will be a certain number of fatalities. You can shake it, bake it, massage it all you want but it’s not going to change significantly.
    This is good news for all these groups that want heaver enforcement and more laws to generate more money. They realize that this means there will always be a constant supply of revenue. It goes without saying that higher enforcement and more laws will kick up the revenue but have little discernible effect on the accident/fatality rate. You could hand a speeding ticket out to every other driver in the country and it won’t make a difference. But, keep your eye on the money.

  7. By Mary C on Mar 10, 2008

    The DOT Numbering regulations are an example of another law created in the name of “safety”. It’s like raising school taxes…”for the children”. A bunch of bunk. If it were really for safety reasons, EVERYONE who drives anything would have to abide by all the same regulations.

  8. By Jerry on Mar 10, 2008

    The fox is guarding the hen-house. Traffic law enforcement is a (revenue)growth industry. And,….of course AAA is in hip pocket of the insurance industry..that’s a no-brainer!! Just remember folks…FOLLOW THE MONEY !!!….and you will never go wrong…it is just that simple…hg

  9. By Paul Phillips on Mar 11, 2008

    In Massachusetts, where the highways are the “third worst in the nation” and the overheads in newly constructed “Big Dig” tunnels come crashing down and kill people, AAA advocates not exceeding the absurdly low speed limits and buckling up your kid in the back seat, it does precious little else for the membership bucks we give it. Next time around when membership is due we are thinking about dumping it. Yes, they are an insurance front fraud.

  10. By Patty on Mar 11, 2008

    Insurance is probably the reason every other part of their service sucks. I did not renew my membership because they left me on the roadside for over 3 hrs once. They give the usual and unbelievable 25 min qoate, which is never ever met. They can’t get a tow truck to respond that quickly and most of the time they can’t even find the party that is broken down. I work for a state agency that has to deal with AAA every single day, and it is a real head ache to have to call them because even with a good location, the company cannot find them, or tow companies won’t run for them because they are such a pain the hiney end. I would like to see AAA fall flat on it’s face. Besides, they are way too high for insurance rates, I quit using them years ago for that.

  11. By George on Mar 11, 2008

    Just look at the terrible state of that the cars/trucks are in the US.

    Does the US have a mandate for amber rear turn signals?
    Does the US have a mandate for positive signaling, fast response [LED} brake lights?
    Does the US have a standard for adaptive brake lights [regarding their use with Brake Assist]?
    Does the US have a mandate for a lateral front turn signal repeater [either a turn signal mirror, or fender mounted lamp]?
    Does the US have a mandate for positive front turn signals [no combination park/turn?
    Does the US have a minimum standard for front horns [no more single note horns]?
    Does the US have a mandate to eliminate glaring dual beam headlights [even the newest H13 based designs, although better than 9007/HB5, are still too glaring]?
    Does the US have a mandate for automatic leveling [sensor on rear axle] for projector headlights?
    Does the US have a mandate for dynamic auto leveling [front & rear axle sensors] for HID headlights? [or for that matter, require that HID headlights be projector based]

    The vehicle lighting in the US is in the stone age.
    If the automakers would throw $100 toward high quality lighting, the blame for accidents/injuries/congestion/$ would not lie primarily on antiquated/obsolete equipment. It would be more so, one of human error & dereliction of responsibilty [use signal of intent to turn, etc.]

  12. By George on Mar 11, 2008

    FMVSS 108 needs a complete re-write.

  13. By Joe on Mar 11, 2008

    Stoneage is right and our speed limits are ’50’s vintage. Yet we think we live in a high tech age. Our speed limits sure don’t reflect it. Of course until we take the riches out of traffic control (mostly speeding) then I don’t see any improvement despite how the rest of our lives graduate up on technology scale.
    Our roads are lot better then the ’50s. Vehicles are far superior then the ’50’s and the accident rate is much lower per vehicle miles driven but our speed limits remain the same ….if even lower. They never recovered from Mr. Nixons’ brilliant idea of a 55 NMSL.
    We the citizens pay for the whole mess. If we get a new road, we get no say as to what the speed limit will be. It’s kinda like somebody buying a new car for you with your money but you don’t get to pick the color or any of the accessories.

  14. By Allison on Mar 12, 2008

    Not meaning to change the subject, but does anyone remember the study AAA sponsered a few years ago to determine if cell phone use increased the risk of a traffic accident? They pulled accident reposrts from across the country, and looked to see what the probable cause of the accident was (if known). The result was that more accidents were caused by drivers who were distracted by a conversation, and there was no evidence that cell phone conversations were any more distracting than were conversations with passengers (although conversations with children were far more distraacting than were conversations with adults). Bottom line, according to this AAA-sponsored study, is that it is the conversation, not the use of the cell phone, that increases the risk of accident.

    One year later, AAA backed a bill (later voted into a law which takes effect in July 2008) to ban cell phone use by drivers in California, unless they use a hands-free device, BECAUSE USING CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE DRIVERS RISK OF AN ACCIDENT.

    Makes me wonder if AAA doesn’t own stock in hands-free device companies. A little hypocrisy to go with the about-face, anyone?

  15. By James Young on Mar 12, 2008

    Either that or they saw an opportunity to create another violation, which leads to points, which leads to premium surcharges . . .

    Naw, couldn’t be that.

  16. By Terry Brennan on Mar 17, 2008

    AAA left me stranded in my RV on a trip to the super bowl. They wanted to flatbed my rig instead of hiring someone in the local area which is what I did after a four hour delay. They failed to reimburse my expenses and I terminated my membership with them. To this day I have not even received any type of appology for them leaving me stranded. What I do receive is 2 or 3 new requests a month to rejoin their club. Right in the trashcan.

Post a Comment