Value of a Statistical Life

People Care About the STOP Underrides! Bill For a Good Reason

* DOT FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) data is known to yield vastly underreported deaths.

IIHS 1992 Status Report: Underride Death Count Too Low

** 1997 study said that the deaths attributed to underride as reported by the FARS are 4% of total truck crash fatalities. Other studies suggest that 27-50% would be more accurate. Incidence of Large Truck-Passenger Vehicle Underride Crashes in Fatal Accident Reporting System and National Accident Sampling System

# Underride Deaths in 1994-2015* (FARS data) = 4,201

Take those 4,201 deaths which represent 4% of the total truck crash deaths reported by FARS to be due to underride. Convert it to a more realistic estimate of 27% of truck crash deaths which are likely due to underride. That would be 28,362 people who died between 1994 and 2015 due to preventable truck underride.

Imagine!

Now let’s take that one step further. Multiply those 28,362 underride deaths by $9.6 million — the DOT Value of a Statistical Life. That equals $272,275,200,000!

That value represents our loved ones and members of our communities who lost their lives abruptly and violently due to underride. (And that isn’t even taking into account the thousands upon thousands who were injured due to Passenger Compartment Intrusion.)

The cost of implementing the STOP Underrides! Bill will not even come close to reaching such a costly price as that which has already been paid.

As soon as I read the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, I could smell trouble.

To begin with, I have questions about NHTSA’s figures, especially undercounting deaths from underride and the overlooking of possible saved lives from requiring improved underride standards on trailers. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underreporting%20of%20underride%20deaths

Then, this is what I read in NHTSA’s explanation as they spelled out their cost/benefit analysis:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0001

“b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. . .

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation ⁽³⁵⁾identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

Actually, the VSL, as of June 17, 2015, is now $9.4 million. No matter because it still would not be anywhere near the supposed cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTS (with, of course, certain exempt ones which are already able to prevent underride with their current equipment).

The logical outcome is that the industry will lobby against this rulemaking. I am concerned that cost may too likely win out over preventing countless persons from surviving a truck crash. https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

As an example of this, see the two most recent Public Comments on this ANPRM — posted November 2, 2015:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0066 “An agency rule may be arbitrary and capricious if the agency, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Without considering the costs to the roads and bridges, any factual determination of the costs and benefits of requiring single unit trucks to include read guards may be unreasonable and could demonstrate that the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0065“7. By your own estimates in the ANPRM the rear impact guards are not cost effective and there are still additional costs with the proposal you have not included in the ANPRM.
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies
$9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for
Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of
preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL
in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary
estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per
equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will
not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the
preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum
of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that
these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

VSL Guidance-2013-2 DOT value of life

DOT VSL Guidance, as of June 17, 2015: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf

GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

p.s. This battle has a history:

“1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.”

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=1974+US+Secretary+of+Transportation+says+deaths+in+cars+that+underride+trucks+would+have+to+quadruple+before+underride+protection+would+be+considered+cost+beneficial.