Saving lives in road traffic—ethical aspects
Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2009 Dec; 17(6): 385–394.
Published online 2009 Apr 9. doi: 10.1007/s10389-009-0264-7
“In transportation as well as in health care, people die and are prevented from dying due to actions and omissions of individuals as well as functioning and dysfunctional systems and policies. Accordingly, a continuous ethical discussion concerning road traffic is needed. The areas discussed in the following are criminalisation, paternalism, privacy, justice and responsibility.1 The reasons for this focus is that these are five important areas in moral philosophy and together they provide a rough list according to which many of the more specific ethically relevant issues arising in traffic safety can be categorised.”
From a 2009 research article, “The effect of state regulations on truck-crash fatalities.“:
“Truck-length limitations reduced fatalities in crashes involving large trucks. Our model estimates suggested that if all states had adopted a speed limit of 55 miles per hour for all vehicles in 2005, an additional 561 fatalities would have been averted.”
Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, I was able to watch a live-stream press conference yesterday from the comfort of my home. As a result, I was enlightened about the STATE OF SAFETY in our country. We are acting like the individually-united states are just that–individual. Acting like they need to have control over decisions about what SAFETY measures should be required in their individual states.
In disregard of the abundantly-available wonders of modern safety technology, what we are really doing is increasing the likelihood that INDIVIDUALS in their states will experience DEATH BY MOTOR VEHICLE!
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety held a press conference yesterday at which they released their 13th annual Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws–outlining the 319 proven safety laws which many states have not adopted, including such things as seat belt usage, motorcycle helmet laws, impaired driving, child passenger safety, teen graduated licensing laws, and distracted driving.
I was alerted to the upcoming event by Lou Lombardo of Care for Crash Victims. He sent out this notice:
Report to be released tomorrow from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety titled “Missing”.
Missing refers to State Safety Laws missing in each State.
Buried in the State summaries are statistics on the number of people who died of crash injuries in each State for the past 10 years. Add them up and we find that 362,532 Americans are “missing” i.e., lost their lives due to vehicle violence over the 10 year period.
Using NHTSA figures of estimated injuries nearly 1.5 million additional people suffered serious injuries in America over the 10 year period. These people are also “missing” – i.e., not counted.
Using DOT values of $9 million in comprehensive costs per fatality, America “missing” losses would be valued by DOT to be about $3 trillion.
http://saferoads.org/roadmaps/
Why would we think that proven safety measures should be left up to the individual states to determine whether or not to require their use? Is this a matter of personal freedom? Do we think that we are trampling on citizens’ individual rights? Do we think that we need to give them CHOICE in this matter?
Do we need to let individuals become informed and make their own decisions on what would or would not be a good idea for them? Would their choice impact only them and them alone? Is that really what we think and how we choose to govern our country?
And if that is, in fact, the case, then why not establish national safety standards and require them to be adopted by states? I know, from the aftermath of our crash, that there are already certain federal highway safety standards which states are required to adopt as is.
Why not do the same for all of those 319 proven SAFETY LAWS alluded to by Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety? Mandate that all states adopt them as well. Why have each state struggle to re-invent the wheel and wade through all of the research (or try to do the research themselves) when we could gather all of the resources needed to design SAFETY Laws at the national level?
See how we are doing that kind of collaborative effort to obtain the best possible truck underride protection:
To not do so is to cause untold delays in bringing about SAFER travel on our roads. In my estimation, to continue to travel down this road of Individual State Safety Laws, is to knowingly sentence to DEATH BY MOTOR VEHICLE countless members of our families and communities today and in all the days to come. That is plain and simple criminal negligence.
And, on top of what I have already said, I would like to add that once safety measures are mandated, then I think that there should be criminal penalties for not adhering to those laws. There should be fines for violation of traffic safety laws. And, if breaking those laws leads to death or serious injury, then the lawbreaker should be held accountable, charged with RECKLESS criminal action, and receive appropriate consequences.
I am no legal expert and cannot begin to delineate exactly how it should be handled. But when I looked up the word reckless, I found reference to the term reckless endangerment , which has been described like this:
In Tennessee, a person may be convicted of the crime of Reckless Endangerment if the state prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person:
Recklessly engaged in conduct;
That placed or may have placed a person;
In imminent danger of death;
Or serious bodily injury.
The term reckless, as it is used here, means that a person was aware of, but consciously disregarded, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct would place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Just yesterday, I saw an example of car owners choosing to not use a safety measure–lane departure warning devices, which apparently can be quite annoying (a glitch which could quite probably be remedied). If use of this safety technology becomes mandated, then those who choose to disregard the law should be charged with any resulting DEATH BY MOTOR VEHICLE.
This, of course, brings up the need to have automakers provide safety devices as standard not optional equipment–at an affordable price for all. And for older vehicles, offer discounts for retrofitting them where possible:
How about a discount on my auto insurance if my car has this tech? Is that 2 much 2 ask? How about it, IIHS? https://t.co/EoEVoj8sMD
Why am I being so vocal about this issue? Because I do not want thousands upon thousands of family members to receive death certificates in the mail for loved ones whose deaths could have been prevented by this country acting in a timely and morally responsible manner.
This issue of mandating national traffic safety standards to be adopted by states adds one more practical application to my recommendations for a National Vision Zero Goal and Vision Zero Executive Order.
To do so would be honoring the memory of not only our daughters, AnnaLeah (forever 17) and Mary (13) who died due to a potentially-preventable truck underride crash, but also my ancestor, Resolved Waldron, who came to New Amsterdam in 1654, established a home on Broadway near Wall Street http://tinyurl.com/hlpu2mx, and “His conscientious exactness in performing his duties [as deputy sheriff] made him a favorite with Governor Stuyvesant.” http://www.eroots.net/docs/Waldron%20public.pdf May we always be a nation diligent to protect our citizens.
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety held a press conference today which I watched live-stream. They released their 13th Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws–outlining the 319 proven safety laws which many states have not adopted, including such things as seat belt usage, motorcycle helmet laws, impaired driving, child passenger safety, teen graduated licensing laws, and distracted driving.
http://saferoads.org/roadmaps/
I submitted several questions online, and they replied to this one: “What is causing resistance to these laws being adopted?”
The reply: lobby groups, laws getting stalled in committee. Joan Claybrook encouraged the public to get involved because it can make a difference.
I also asked the question: “How might a National Vision Zero Goal overcome the problem of looking at safety measures in terms of states rights? Establish national safety standards and require them to be adopted by states.”
The reply was a simple: Setting goals is not enough.
No, setting goals is not enough. Which is why, in my efforts to push for Vision Zero, I have clearly laid out specific means of practical implementation. And it is why I have called for President Obama to set a Vision Zero Goal and follow it up with a very detailed Vision Zero Executive Order which will give DOT the authority to implement a Vision Zero rulemaking policy. Purpose: to move things along faster and with more teeth to save the most lives possible.
But I don’t think that all of my question was really addressed. Isn’t it a role of the federal government to protect its citizens? Is the federal government protecting its citizens from Death by Motor Vehicle?
Would it not make sense for these proven laws to be made Federal Law and that adoption of them by every state in the nation be mandated? Is not anything less abdicating from the responsibility to protect its citizens?
As far as I am concerned, it is not violating individual rights to mandate safety measures which are proven to protect individual citizens by saving their lives. What is stopping us from doing so?
Why should states waste time (Read that as LOSE MORE LIVES) re-inventing the wheel and crawling through the red tape and battling the lobbyists who only care about their pocketbook?
NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind made the point today that the number of crash deaths in our country have gone up at least 8.1% (maybe more) in 2015 from the 32,675 people who lost their lives on the roads in 2014. And we don’t want to rise up and say, “Enough is enough!”?
Example of state laws being compatible with federal regulations: COMPATIBILITY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS,
To promote adoption and enforcement of State laws and regulations pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety that are compatible with appropriate parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. . . https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/part/355
The purpose of this part is to ensure the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), States, local government agencies and other political jurisdictions work in partnership to establish programs to improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety to support a safe and efficient transportation system by https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/350.103
“A recent report by Volpe, the DOT’s the National Transportation Systems Center, identifies emerging technologies that may have significant impacts on U.S. and global transportation systems within three to five years. And most of these will find their way into—or become a replacement for—trucks and trucking.”
Should Driving While Fatigued be considered RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT when a person is driving an 80,000 lbs. death machine? Not a new question. Deserves an answer.
“Fatigue is an increasingly recognised risk factor for transportation accidents. In light of this, there is the question of whether driving whilst fatigued should be a criminal offence. This paper discusses the current legal position, including the problems of voluntary conduct and self awareness. Three models for reform are proposed. The manner in which scientific research can inform legal consideration and future directions for research are discussed.”
“Psychomotor vigilance testing of professional drivers in the occupational health clinic: a potential objective screen for daytime sleepiness.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826029
If a truck driver is prone to drive drowsy, what is the logical strategy to make him/her a safer driver? Forbid driving commercially? Require technology to alert to sleepiness? Convict of a reckless criminal offense if not used and a crash results leading to death or serious injury?
What Hours of Service (HOS) rules would make the most sense?
And ENFORCEMENT is oh so very important. In our crash, the Crash Report said, “No Medical Card found.” Yet, was any further mention made of this or investigation done into this? Not that I am aware of.
Driving While Fatigued = DWF = A Public Health Problem
Imagine being the one who fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone as a result. Drowsy driving is too often ignored until it’s too late. Let’s do a better job of solving this problem, America.
Jeremy Finley, Investigative Reporter from Nashville, Tennessee, sheds light on the problem with NHTSA’s proposed rule for underride guards on tractor-trailers. He discusses our crash.
I was thinking again about how there might be less distracted driving crash deaths if we all drove stick shift cars. So I did some searching on the topic and ran across this lengthy article on driverless cars and the future of transportation:
This comment in the article caught my attention and brought up a very valid concern:
“The rise of tech companies effectively making their own rules and then asking the public to accept them puts in question the government’s ability to maintain stability in the industry while ensuring safety and continued access.”
