More Silly Numbers From AAA
March 6th, 2008 Posted in Insurance Companies, James BaxterBy James Baxter, NMA President
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
33 Responses to “More Silly Numbers From AAA”
By Randy on Oct 14, 2008
Jeff are you saying there are no accidents if someone is going 90 mph? What percentage of trucks and other vehicles do not drive at 85 or 90 mph? You will always have someone on this site that would be traveling 10 mph or more faster than everyone else.
I am sure you and James Baxter does not realize that 43,000 dead people a year would add up to over 40 miles of dead bodies if lined up head to toe. That is also the equivalent of a small city. That means absolutly nothing to James Baxter and most here.
By Jeff on Oct 14, 2008
How do you hit someone on the freeway travelling in the same direction as yourself? If you are not paying attention, then YOU should be punished accordingly.
By Randy on Oct 14, 2008
Highway show me facts where it makes no difference if we have security at airports as far as safety, where hitting someone at 90 mph is just as safe as 65 mph, where every policeman is corrupt and only out for himself, where BAC of .15 and larger is very safe, where seatbelts and airbags and other safety measures in cars should be removed because a few hundred or thousand more deaths is no big deal.
By Doug on Oct 14, 2008
The US also does not require a Rear Fog Light (Standard on European cars since the 80’s) and Convex Driver’s Side Mirrors are prohibited (A simple solution to the “Blind Spot” problem on American cars).
By Highway on Oct 14, 2008
Todd, randy *supports* nannyism. It’s his entire gambit:
“I know what’s best for everyone, so everyone should act they way I say they should act.”
And if you try to actually show him facts, he moves the goalposts… again.
Like his respewing the crap about ‘this site wants speed limits at 80 mph or more unless it’s a school zone.’ That he thinks this is a goal of this site is proof of his unreasonableness.
By Randy on Oct 14, 2008
Todd if you read the supported articles and comments by the members you would see where you are wrong about what is actually supported by this organization. James Baxter himself says that lives are worth very little. He feels that if it means a few thousand lives to have a little bit less convenience it is worth it. He and others on this site say that it is all about freedon but it is more about not being incovenienced and let me drive my 400 hp car as fast as I like.
By JOE on Oct 14, 2008
Todd, your wasting your breeeeeath, I mean uh, ink. It’s Randys’ way or the highway. Take it or leave it, no compromise. He’s right, your wrong, case closed. Kinda like the traffic cops. And he wonders why no one believes him.
By Todd on Oct 13, 2008
To Randy
1)Reasonable Speed Limits, this means that speed limits should be Reasonable & Prudent that takes safety and travel efficiency into the equation.
2)Safe Roads & Intersections, meaning to be free from UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE police enforcement. This does not mean that laws should not be enforce. The NMA does support laws and enforcement just as long as it is fair and reasonable based on facts.
3)Rational drunk driving laws, go to the NMA issues and click on DUI/DWI and under Basic Tenets it says the NMA’s position. For #2 the NMA says “We support those legislative and enforcement initiatives that are effective in achieving stated goals of deterrence and removal of impaired drivers. We do not support initiatives based on revenge, political expedience, or emotional hyperbole” and anotheir one is “The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving. The NMA supports constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respective of fundamental rights” The NMA does support Drunk Driving laws and enforcement that works as long as it is fair and reasonable. There is also an organization which is called the Responsibility In DUI Laws (RIDL). Please explore that web site.
4)Improved Traffic Flow, this means to set speed limits under the 85th percent rule of free flowing traffic. Even traffic engineers say this. Alot of studies also show that this is the safest level at which to set speed limits.
5)Sensible Safety Regulations, meaning that safety regulations are used in ways that are reasonable and fair which do not take away freedom. For example the NMA says “The NMA encourages seatbelt use, but it does not support mandatory seatbelt laws and the intrusive and punitive policies they spawn” this means citizens should have freedom of choice when it comes to buckling up however maybe for people under the age of 18 it should be mandatory for them to use seatbelts.
Randy whats so bad about that? The NMA does support reasonable safety regulations NOT nannyism.
Don’t get me wrong Randy because you do have some truth in what you are saying. I have to be honest since there are some things in which the NMA does that I don’t 100% agree with however it is not as bad as you make it seem.
By Randy on Oct 13, 2008
Highway
I have tried to show proof but no one believes it if it does not agree with what you want it to show. There are dozens of studies that have been done to disprove a lot here but no one believes it even though it is true and a lot more research has been put into it.
By Randy on Oct 13, 2008
Todd I do not know how much you have read here but you must have not read a lot of the things that are being pushed here. Yes I do think the following sounds good on the surface:
1)Reasonable Speed Limits
2)Safe Roads & Intersections
3)Rational Drunk-Driving Laws
4)Improved Traffic Flow
5)Sensible Safety Regulations
1 Reasnonalbe Speed limits it prettty much 80 to 85 mph minimum speed unless school zones. This is true.
2 Safe roads means free from any police or enforcement what so ever.
3 Rational drunk driving laws is about 5 times the BAC that we now have. Somewhere in the range that you can not stand anymore.
4 improved traffic flow is increase the speed limits all over.
5 Sensible safety regulations include no seat belts, no air bags, no drls and nothing else that would save lives even if it only costs a couple of bucks. This site is not about increasing safety.
This may sound harsh but if you would read the posts and the articles that are backed by this site then you would have to agree.
By Highway on Oct 13, 2008
Hah, so far, mostly this site has just been an opportunity for randy to relentlessly troll threads, move goalposts, argue inanities, and put forward ambiguous anecdotes as ‘proof’ of whatever he’s spewing.
By Todd on Oct 13, 2008
Randy says
“The site could have had potential for good but it has become a supporter for drug abuse, driving drunk, reckless driving, government and police bashing, a supporter for removeal of all safety devices on vehicles, an I do not care about thousands of deaths or injuies attictude and an I do do not care about anyone else just so that I can break the law atticude”
Now Randy this site does not support drug abuse, reckless driving, and drunk driving. This site does car about safety, and laws just as long as it is reasonable and fair. In short this site does not tolerate driving in ways that put others at risk, and laws that are unreasonable and unfair. It even says what the NMA is for on the first home page where it says:
WHAT WE FIGHT FOR
1)Reasonable Speed Limits
2)Safe Roads & Intersections
3)Rational Drunk-Driving Laws
4)Improved Traffic Flow
5)Sensible Safety Regulations
Does that seem really wrong to you? or does that seem reasonable and fair?
“Todd I believe in showing the truth of which there has been little on this site”
Please show us the truth that you claim has not really been on this site.
Sorry if my comment was too much on the surface but if you want I can go into detail.
By Randy on Oct 13, 2008
Todd I believe in showing the truth of which there has been little on this site. I also am agianst a lot this site has become. The site could have had potential for good but it has become a supporter for drug abuse, driving drunk, reckless driving, government and police bashing, a supporter for removeal of all safety devices on vehicles, an I do not care about thousands of deaths or injuies attictude and an I do do not care about anyone else just so that I can break the law atticude. I know I left a lot off.
By Todd on Oct 13, 2008
Oh boy!!! more news.
By Todd on Oct 13, 2008
Randy do you like what the NMA stands for and are you a member of the NMA. Please be honest. I am not trying to get you mad I just want to know because you seem to oppose most of the posts and the articles from the NMA which is ok because you most certainly have a right to an opinion, view, or stand point. I am however not saying that you oppose all of the posts and the articles from the NMA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
By JOE on Oct 12, 2008
Gee, everywhere I look I find Randy. Must be lonely in a choir of one. You remember back when you started posting. I can’t find it but you said something to the effect that your professor had told you that no one would listen to you. I think that’s still true today. But I will say one thing, I don’t know how it happened but your fascination with speed limits seems to have temporarily subsided. If you want to oppose everything and everyone that posts here I’d say you’re doing a good job.
By Randy on Oct 12, 2008
I had not read this post before. What a joke. James is good at making up numbers. His hour spent each day in congested traffic may be right in a few cities during certain times but millions are like I am where we spend less than an hour each day in travel to and from work and many millions live within 10 minutes of work. What a joke Only the huge cities or poorly designed cities people spend an hour getting to work. There are probably a 100 million or more that spend less than 2 minutes a day because of congestion. He also forgot to include all the retired drivers and people that take the trains to work.
Jim also says that life and injuries are not worth anything. Where did he come up with fatalities numbers falling like a rock? If that is true we must have had millions of deaths each year before I started driving.
” 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”
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2008
AAA was losing customers like crazy in Michigan due to inflated insurance premiums. The company is now advertising “we’ve lowered our auto rates” in an attempt to woo back customers.
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.
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.
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?
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.
By George on Mar 11, 2008
FMVSS 108 needs a complete re-write.
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.]
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.