NHTSA Study: Car crashes cost $871 billion a year

[K1052]

Highway crashes create an enormous economic toll on the lives of Americans, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in a new study. The annual price tag for those crashes: $871 billion in economic loss and societal harm in 2010.

The total includes $277 billion in economic costs – nearly $900 for each person living in the USA – and $594 billion in societal harm from the loss of life and the pain and decreased quality of life because of injuries.

"No amount of money can replace the life of a loved one, or stem the suffering associated with motor vehicle crashes," U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said. "While the economic and societal costs of crashes are staggering, today's report clearly demonstrates that investments in safety are worth every penny used to reduce the frequency and severity of these tragic events."

A similar study in 2011 by auto club AAA found that each fatal crash in 99 urban areas arries an economic toll of about $6 million. That estimate was based on Federal Highway Administration data that place dollar values on 11 components: property damage; lost earnings; loss of household activities; medical costs; emergency services; travel delays; vocational rehabilitation; lost time at work; administrative costs; legal costs; and pain and lost quality of life.

NHTSA's study, "The Economic and Society Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010," focuses on some of the behavioral factors that contributed to that year's 32,999 highway fatalities, 3.9 million injuries and 24 million damaged vehicles. It found that just three driver behaviors, speeding, drunken driving and distracted driving, accounted for 56% of the economic loss to the nation and 62% of the societal harm.

The breakdown:

•Speeding. Crashes involving vehicles exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions accounted for 21% of the total economic loss and cost $59 billion. These crashes were responsible for $210 billion – or 24% -- of the overall societal harm.

•Drunken driving. Crashes caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol accounted for 18% of the total economic loss from automobile wrecks and cost the nation $49 billion. These crashes were responsible for $199 billion – or 23% -- of the overall societal harm.

•Distraction. Crashes involving a distracted driver accounted for 17% of the total economic loss and cost $46 billion. These crashes were responsible for $129 billion – or 15% -- of the overall societal harm.

"We want Americans to live long and productive lives, but vehicle crashes all too often make that impossible," said NHTSA's acting administrator, David Friedman. "This new report underscores the importance of our safety mission and why our efforts and those of our partners to tackle these important behavioral issues and make vehicles safer are essential to our quality of life and our economy."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/29/steep-economic-toll-of-crashes/9715893/

I knew it was probably a lot but damn. Not to mention an annual death toll only slightly less than the number of US servicemen killed in the entire Korean war.

 

[boomerang]

Sounds like it's helping to save the planet. Fewer people. Fewer people buying cars, fewer people spewing carbon, fewer people consuming, etc.

The NHTSA sounds like some kind of right-wing tea party type group. Has anyone contacted the IRS about them?

 

[First]

Yes that's quite revealing, though unfortunately not surprising given the tens of thousands of Americans that die from auto deaths each year.

Sounds like it's helping to save the planet. Fewer people. Fewer people buying cars, fewer people spewing carbon, fewer people consuming, etc.

The NHTSA sounds like some kind of right-wing tea party type group. Has anyone contacted the IRS about them?

Troll troll troll your boat.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is what google is on the verge of solving. Automated vehicles will save an enormous amount.

 

[SunnyD]

Ban cars. Then we can pay off the deficit in no time!

 

[K1052]

This is what google is on the verge of solving. Automated vehicles will save an enormous amount.

They certainly hold great promise. I look forward to the day when I can summon driverless car services on demand for a reasonable cost.

 

[Anarchist420]

it looks to me like drunk driving legislation, road regs, and driver regs arent making us safer

i want virginia to experiment with upping the punishment for manslaughter to death while legalizing drunk driving as well as legalizing driving without a license

 

[shira]

They certainly hold great promise. I look forward to the day when I can summon driverless car services on demand for a reasonable cost.

Driverless cars will greatly improve the efficiency of existing roads, allowing much greater volumes of traffic without congestion, since all of the cars will communicate with a central controller, which will coordinate their movements.

Driverless cars will also provide a huge benefit to the elderly who can no longer drive safely. Instead of becoming housebound and dependent on others, they'll simply hop in (make that slouch into) their driverless cars, provide voice instructions, and sit back and relax.

The only roadblock (sorry for the pun) to the full benefits of driverless cars will be the small percentage of drivers that will argue that driving manually is an inherent right. I foresee a growing conflict in the coming years between those who insist on "driving their own way" and the broader society that recognizes that allowing manual drivers to share the same roads with driverless cars will hold back rest of us. Obviously, there will be a period of transition (it's predicted that ALL cars will be driverless by about 2050), and during that period there will clearly be conflicts.

 

[Jeff7]

I think the one line in the movie A.I. was spot-on, when someone takes manual control of the automatic car, and the other person says something to the effect of, "Are you crazy?!"
Compared to what a sensor-laden computer system could be, a human driver is downright sluggish, and won't always make a good decision.
How often do you practice for the variety of emergency situations that can occur on the road? You probably don't. At all.
So when the time comes to figure your way out of a situation, you're almost certain to have less than a second to determine a good course of action and implement it. You're more likely to simply react, and your first idea might not be the best one.

They certainly hold great promise. I look forward to the day when I can summon driverless car services on demand for a reasonable cost.

Or they'll be free. Once inside the car, Google ads bombard you from every angle.

 

[shira]

Or they'll be free. Once inside the car, Google ads bombard you from every angle.

There will certainly be driverless taxis. But I'm guessing that most people will purchase their own driverless cars, with built-in, interconnected, multiply-redundant control systems. With economies of scale and standardized systems, the marginal cost over equivalent manual-control cars will be very small.

In fact, the cost might be less - no steering wheel, gas pedal, brakes, mirrors, gauges, and (when all cars are driverless) outside lights; and all seating would be "passenger," simplifying the layout and design constraints.

Edit: And the cost of running the car will be lower: Fuel economy will be optimized, with no leaden-foot accelerations and no drag racers. In fact, the whole reason for needing super-powerful engines would simply go away: What need will there be for sub-six-second 0-to-60 times when all of the cars are cooperating with one another for access to lanes?

If people want to experience the "thrill" of driving, I'm sure there will be closed-courses available to test drivers.

Oh, pretty much the entire notion of DUI will go away, freeing individuals to "indulge" without fear and saving individuals and society all of the costs of enforcing/punish people for DUI behavior.

 

[TreVader]

Not sure why everybody is so upset about driverless cars. It will save money, lives, and the only downside is you don't get to do stupid shit in your car.

 

[Thebobo]

Need to eliminate the reason we have to drive so many places.

 

[Double Trouble]

If the only purpose of cars was to move people from one place to another, we'd all be driving efficient econoboxes. I enjoy driving my car, I'd much rather drive myself than have an automated ride, but with technology advancing I'm sure at some point that option will not exist and there will be a whole new generation that knows nothing about the joys of driving.

 

[Lash444]

Not sure why everybody is so upset about driverless cars. It will save money, lives, and the only downside is you don't get to do stupid shit in your car.

Yeah, like when your driverless car hits a patch of ice on the road. Or when there is debris that it can't detect, and your car runs it over.

Just wait until person "X" loses their family to a driverless car. Then tell them to their face it was for the greater good. Accidents will be inevitable. Sure, 90% of the people might go with the statistics on the matter, but once people start dying, statistics go out the window.

A slow commute to work on 35 mph roads...sure I would do that. Long commutes in the midwest, aint no way in hell until I have seen YEARS of repeated statistics showing its safe.

 

[Lash444]

Or what happens when someone hacks the GPS of your car? What happens when the system goes down, and you have how many drivers on the road with NO idea what they are doing.

Remember when people use to think wed have flying cars by 2000? Yeah. Driverless cars accepted by the masses by 2050? I imagine it will be like virtual reality. We will get there eventually, but driverless cars will replace all cars by 2050? ROFL. No way, in hell.

 

[MongGrel]

Personally, I doubt I'll ever own a self driving car in my lifetime.

 

[TreVader]

Yeah, like when your driverless car hits a patch of ice on the road. Or when there is debris that it can't detect, and your car runs it over.



Just wait until person "X" loses their family to a driverless car. Then tell them to their face it was for the greater good. Accidents will be inevitable. Sure, 90% of the people might go with the statistics on the matter, but once people start dying, statistics go out the window.



A slow commute to work on 35 mph roads...sure I would do that. Long commutes in the midwest, aint no way in hell until I have seen YEARS of repeated statistics showing its safe.

You fail to understand that people can realize the difference between millions of people dying and maybe a few hundred a year.

 

[rudder]

What we need are robots we can control from the safety of our own homes. We see what it sees. That way we can send the robot out into the mean cruel world. While we control it from our safe homes. Then we can still drive cars without the fear of getting hurt.