The Feds Think They Can Save 67 Lives for the Low, Low Price of $48 Million

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration declares a crisis and issues new regulations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wants to regulate a crisis that doesn't exist—and it's going to cost tens of millions of dollars.

On Monday, the NHTSA proposed a new vehicle safety standard "to reduce fatalities and serious injuries among pedestrians struck by vehicles." If approved, the proposal will establish "new test procedures to stimulate a head-to-hood impact, along with performance requirements to minimize risk of head injury."

The proposal follows news that yearly pedestrian fatalities increased by 75 percent since a 2009 nadir, as reported by NPR. While the near-doubling of pedestrian deaths over 15 years certainly sounds alarming, do we really have a "crisis of roadway deaths" that's "even worse among vulnerable road users like pedestrians," as NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman claims? A cursory examination of the statistics suggests not.

In absolute terms, pedestrian traffic fatalities have increased 83 percent, from 4,109 in 2009 to 7,522 in 2022, the last year for which we have data. Per capita terms are more informative. With a population of 306.8 million in 2009 and 333.3 million in 2022, per capita pedestrian deaths increased by 77 percent, from approximately 13 to 23 per million. To put this into perspective, 46,653 Americans died from falls in 2022—nearly an order of magnitude greater than pedestrian fatalities.

Since the establishment of the NHTSA by the Highway Safety Act of 1970, pedestrian deaths have been virtually stagnant in absolute terms: 7,516 and 7,522 pedestrians died in 1975 and 2022, respectively. This translates to a steady per capita decrease in pedestrian deaths: 35 per million in 1975 and 23 per million in 2022. Although there's no crisis, thousands of pedestrian deaths are certainly a problem.

The NHTSA exists to "help reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the nation's highways," according to the Federal Register. Per §201 subsection b paragraph 1 of the National Highway Safety Act of 1970, "the Secretary [of the NHTSA] shall carry out…highway safety programs, research, and development related to…highway-related aspects of pedestrian safety." By undertaking its proposed project, the NHTSA is squarely operating within its statutory authority.

NHTSA may be operating within its statutory authority, but it's doing so wastefully. How do we know? NHTSA kindly included a cost-benefit analysis in its notice of proposed rulemaking.

The NHTSA estimates that its proposal, if approved, would "mitigate approximately 67.4 fatalities annually." Not 67.4 hundred—just 67.4 lives. While the number of lives saved is small, the cost of the program is anything but, with "total annual costs rang[ing] from $48.94 to $60.43" million. Using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, the NHTSA's regulation costs $1.1 million per life saved. There are cheaper ways to save a life.

Comments

[Yuno Hoo]

There are cheaper ways to save a life.

Obviously the solution is to ban pedestrians on *motorways*, that is, roads designed for *automobile* traffic.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Too many people walking. Need MOAR trains.

[Jerry B.]

All pedestrians should be required to wear a full-face Snell Foundation approved helmet when walking within 25 yards of traffic lanes. Violations to be punished by 30 days home confinement and an ankle monitor.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Bubble wrap, 12" x 750' roll for $50 (retail). That's a lot of heads you can protect for a fraction of the cost.

[Eeyore]

It just needs to be socially acceptable to shoot a driver who fails to yield. Then all pedestrians/bicyclists need to be required to carry a firearm.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Point of order. When do bicyclists ever actually follow the rules of the road?

[Eeyore]

In this case only pedestrians would be allowed to shoot bicyclists.

Also, whatever cunt invented the "sharrow" should be shot.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Oh, so you want to play the intersectional oppressor game?

[Eeyore]

Ok. In national forests, people on horses can shoot at both hikers and bicyclists.

[Minadin]

"Also, whatever cunt invented the “sharrow” should be shot."

. . . along with the rest of the urban planning profession.

[Eeyore]

They should at least be locked into a SimCity simulation with natural disasters set to high.

[Zeb]

I always follow the rules of the road on a bicycle. Cyclists who ride against traffic is a big pet peeve of mine.

[JFree]

Bikes and vehicles should generally not be on the same roads/path

[Minadin]

That's what the arresting officer always says.

[Zeb]

Given the timeframe, I'd bet that most of the increase is down to people (pedestrians and drivers) looking at their phones.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Better returns than the broadband or ev charger initiatives.

[Uncle Jay]

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration declares a crisis and issues new regulations."

I always thought Congress made new regulations, not some chickenshit bureaucracy.
I stand corrected.

[Zeb]

Where have you been?

[Sir Chips Alot]

Think of how much higher the death toll would be if it were not for the Top Men at the NHTSA

[Joe]

"Using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, the NHTSA's regulation costs $1.1 million per life saved. There are cheaper ways to save a life."

Young Jedi, you've made two interesting comments, but they're not necessarily related.

The last numbers that I saw regarding the break-even price of a life saved via regulation (versus incurring greater societal deaths by the impacts of reducing national income) was $15 million to $30 million per life saved. So, if still true, a regulatory cost of ~$1 million per life saved is actually pretty good.

And, yes, there are cheaper ways to save a life.

One question is whether there are cheaper ways in this particular context.

Another question is whether spending ~$1 million per life saved in this context is inefficient if, say, one could save 2 lives for that cost in another context. In other words, get the biggest bang for the buck first and work one's way down the list of bad things to be addressed, as opposed to addressing the "issue du jour."

[mad.casual]

And it all presupposes that taking from one person, or many, is automatically justified as long as some infinitesimal fraction of a life might be saved by the taking and that, further, even the signalling of the (morality of the) taking doesn't exacerbate the problem.

[JFree]

Ped deaths are only stagnant since 1975 because peds disappeared. The reason it has risen since 2007 or so is because that was the point where we literally can no longer walk less. Kids no longer walk anywhere. They get driven around. Sidewalks no longer even get built. Which means peds would have to walk on the street except that that's a dumb idea so they don't. In the late 70's, the single change of 'right turn on red' raised ped accidents by 60%. Peds didn't respond by persisting in that and drivers didn't respond by giving a shit. People stopped walking if it might involve an intersection. As vehicle speed kept increasing in residential or foot traffic areas, peds responded by not walking. As Americans stopped walking outdoors, we got fatter - esp among kids. This should be obvious to even halfwits but apparently not.

Further ped fatalities are not a good indicator of the problem. There are about 140,000 ER admissions each year for peds hit by vehicles. Plenty more where the injury is maybe a concussion or a sprain from successfully escaping getting hit. Magnitudes more than that for a ped who is intimidated off their path by a car and I'm talking sidewalk or crosswalk. Those are outcomes that alter future behavior. Fatalities do not.

Considering 80% of Americans never walk any significant distance outdoors anymore, the denominator is not 330 million but more like 60 million. This article is a fraud - with a very typical agenda for this place.

[NoVaNick]

We have “vision zero” where I live, whose goal is zero pedestrian or bicyclist deaths-an impossible goal to achieve since it includes people who get hit while walking or biking on highways where they are not supposed to be.

I knew to look both ways before crossing the street by the time I was 3 or 4, but this is another concept lost on younger generations.

[JFree]

“look both ways’ presumes that only the ped is responsible for anything. That the driver doesn’t need to look at all. Right turn on red really did break that ‘look both ways’. Because it is the DRIVER who wasn’t looking for the path to be clear of peds. They were looking left – at other cars. So ‘look both ways’ has to turn into ‘negotiate with other drivers via eye contact to allow a ped into the crosswalk’. Well that’s the only opening cars need to not stop at crosswalks or ever yield to a ped.

How fucking dare you pretend that the problem is kids walking in the street. They’re not walking at all asshole. Even around schools, the problem is always cars driving over the flashing ‘school’ limit and not stopping at stop signs.

And unless your town's 'vision zero' means eliminating half of the streets in your town (assuming a grid system) from vehicle thru traffic, then that goal isn't serious.

[Zeb]

“look both ways’ presumes that only the ped is responsible for anything.
No it doesn't. Everyone needs to look out for their own safety because sometimes other people do dumb shit. Of course drivers also have some ethical obligation to pay attention to pedestrians.

[JFree]

Of course drivers also have some ethical obligation to pay attention to pedestrians.

They don’t do that AT ALL. Some drivers don’t even pay attention to sidewalks (unless there’s a curb that will damage their car). And interesting that you mention an ethical obligation not a legal obligation. So now what? They’re not going to get hurt. Hell – they won’t even go to jail if they hit a ped unless the driver was drunk.

And don’t pretend that kid’s aren’t still taught ‘look both ways’. The sole purpose of this ‘kids nowadays Four Yorkshiremen shit’ is – to blame the ped when they get hit. All I see from people here is excuses that blame the ped. NEVER the driver

[Squirrelloid]

You haven’t seen the idiotic pedestrians I have, then.

Just today, some moron decided the right time to start walking across a busy intersection during rush hour was just when the green turn arrows lit up. (And crossing right in front of the cars, too, not across the road the cars would be turning onto and where their drivers’ attention was). They were lucky they weren’t hit.

Regardless, as far as I understand it, legally, the driver is pretty much always at fault when they hit a pedestrian, unless the pedestrian actively threw themself in front of the vehicle. (Certainly in a civil suit, good luck getting a jury to not assign the majority of the fault to the driver).

And we walked plenty of places in the 80s and 90s. Heck, I didn’t even have access to a car for much of the 00s. I don’t think you can tie less walking to some change in traffic laws.

[JFree]

There are many reasons why walking has declined over time as a mode of mobility. That's happened everywhere. There are fewer destinations within walking distance - and perceived safety of both walking/cycling has declined over time. The cause of both those is the car - and the US has, for many decades before the 70's 'led' that reduction in walking. It is why even back in the 70's, walking/biking combined was 10% or so of total daily trips in the US - compared to nearly 50% in NL or FR and 40% in UK or DE. Today, it's about 9% in the US - compared to 25% in FR and UK (not biking countries for utility), 35% in DE and 45% in NL (both biking countries). Those places still walk/bike a ton compared to us. That shows on the streets.

What that single traffic law (right turn on red) showed was how much a single law could jack up fatalities/injuries in a short span of time. How much it could jack up perceived risk/safety of those modes of travel. Which is really important for changing the behavior of women, kids, and seniors. Men don't give a shit - but nor do men chauffeur their kids around. The fatality/injury rate - per km walked/biked - is around 3x to 20x higher in the US than those others. And unlike anywhere else, we responded to that particular fatality spike with a yawn. We (in particular men) weren't going to change our love of cars just because kids are killed - and we never will.

That traffic law is not THE reason things changed (lots of things occurred over the last decades) but it is the way we can understand what changed. One demographic really depends on walking/biking if they are to be independent and grow up - kids (under 16 or so). Today 18% of their daily trips in the US are done by walking/biking. I'm sure there's still a lot of school bus for their 'commute' but there's a ton of Chauffeur Mom for every other trip. Contrast that with NL - where 65% of daily trips for kids are walking/biking (and that age group includes pre-schoolers who are obviously going to be driven around). Independence is the norm for Dutch kids very early. Passive snowflake bubble is the norm for US kids early.

Obviously any govt agency with 'highway' in the name is not even going to understand how to gather walking/biking statistics properly.

[JFree]

legally, the driver is pretty much always at fault when they hit a pedestrian,

Legally - most vehicular manslaughter laws include DUI or somesuch as a condition of penalty. Otherwise - its he said she said - and dead pedestrians in particular don't challenge whatever bullshit the driver will spin about what happened.

[mad.casual]

No it doesn’t.

Or, if it does, "But I had the right of way!" still looks pretty stupid on your tombstone and physics is a bitch either way.

[mad.casual]

Stray dogs used to turn up on the farm. There was one dog that would wait at the road rather than off-handedly heel. A "city dog" that someone had trained or had learned how to cross the road.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fun fact: NHTSA and other auto safety mavens like to both annoy us and congratulate themselves for all their noble life-saving regulations, starting with required seat belts in 1968. But if you look at auto fatality rates by year, you will see a very consistent decline since driving became common in the 1920s. But we can't assume that people jut prefer not crashing and dying, can we?

[Bowerick Wowbagger]

Remy said it best — “this modest change must be applied….unless of course you just want people to die”