Theories of Highway Safety
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Transportation Research Record 912 7 7. J.T. Bennett and M.H. Johnson. Better Govern stration. U.S. Department of Transportation, ment at Half the Price. Caroline House, Otta March 1982. wa, IL, 1981. 20. G.A. Gilbert. Historical Development of the 8, E.S. Savas, Privatizing the Public Sector. Air Traffic Control System. IEEE, Trans. on Chatham House, Chatham, NJ, 1982. Communications, Vol. COM-21, No. 5, May 1973. 9. R.W. Poole, Jr. Toward Safer Skies. In In- 21. J. Doherty. Towering Entrepreneurs. Reason, stead of Regulation (R.W. Poole, Jr., ed.), May 1983. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1982. 22. B.R. Schlender. Some Small Airports Hiring 10. FAA's En-Route Air Traffic Control Computer Firms to Provide Air-Traffic Controllers. Wall System. Report to the Subcommittee on Trans Street Journal, March 24, 1982. portation, Investigations Staff, Committee on 23. G.A. Gilbert. The United States Air Traffic Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Oct. 1980. Services Corporation. Glen A. Gilbert and As 11. R. Hotz. A Lagging Bureaucracy. Aviation Week sociates, Washington, DC, 1975, 2 volumes. and Space Technology, July 20, 1970. 24. PATCO Seeks Mass Resignation Ruling. Aviation 12. Problems Confronting the Federal Aviation Ad Week and Space Technology, Nov. 10, 1969. ministration in the Development of an Air Traf 25. The Futures Group. Aviation Futures to the fic Control System for the 1970s. Government Year 2000. FAA, U.S. Department of Transporta Activities Subcommittee, U.S. House of Repre tion, 1977. sentatives, July 16, 1970. 2 6. Airport and Airway Cost Allocation Study: De 13. Report of the Secretary's Task Force on the FAA termination, Allocation, and Recovery of System Safety Mission. U.S. Department of Transporta Costs. u. S. Department of Transportation, tion, April 30, 1975. Sept. 1973. 14. Issues and Management Problems in Developing an 27. Financing the Airport and Airway System: Cost Improved Air Traffic Control System. General Allocation and Recovery. U.S. Department of Accounting Off ice, Dec. 15, 1976. Transportation, Rept. FAA-AVP-78-14, Nov. 1978. 15. Report to the Federal Aviation Administration. 28. A. Chalk. The Role of Brand Names in the Pro Special Air Safety Advisory Group, U.S. Depart vision of Safety: An Emperical Test on the ment of Transportation, July 30, 1975. U.S. Passenger Aircraft Market. Presented at 16. J. Doherty. Collision Course. Reason, Vol. the Western Economic Association Meeting, July 14, No. 2, June 1982. 1982. 17. C.A. Lave. Dealing with the Transit Deficit. 29. G.K. O'Neill. Satellites Instead. AOPA Pilot, Journal of Contemporary Studies, Vol. IV, No. July 1982. 2, Spring 1981. 18. FAA Continues to Weigh Peak-Hour ATC Staffing. Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Application of Economic Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 26, Analysis to Transportation Problems. 1982. Notice: The Transportation Research Board does not endorse products or 19. L.M. Jones and others. Management and Employee manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names appear in this paper because Relations within the Federal Aviation Admini- they are considered essential to its object. Abridgment Theories of Highway Safety WALTER BLOCK The highway safety record in the United States is unfortunate, where some agement for the current institutional arrangements 50 000 people lose their lives every year and some 2 000 000 more are involved under which such tasks, rights, and responsibilities in serious accidents. This phenomenon has evoked a response from the social are accorded to the public sector. science community: try to and find the causes and hence the cures. The diffi [Note: The substitution of private for public culty, however, is that all such attempts have been marred by a major flaw: the road ownership and management should be distin belief that whatever else is the cause of the problem, one thing is not responsi ble-the current institutional arrangements, whereby road and street safety is guished from another theoretical posi tion--one that the responsibility of the public sector. This view is challenged, and an alterna advocates that the current public-sector highway tive scenario of private road ownership is presented. Based on this model, managers introduce peak-load or other pricing several attempted explanations of, and implicit cures for, highway fatalities and schemes usually associated with the marketplace. accidents are discussed. Specifically, an analysis is undertaken of the claim There is a vast difference between these two pro that a major portion of the responsibility can be leveled at the manufacturers posals. In the former case, the highways would be of road vehicles. One fallacy committed by this argument includes ignoring the turned over to private entrepreneurs, and the new fact that the private highway inspection industry has been in effect nationalized. owners would themselves decide what kind of charging The criticisms by the Naderites of the NHTSA are considered, and the policy mechanism to institute (1,2). In the latter case, recommendations based on this analysis are rejected. the various road authorities would continue their overall management but would merely introduce some Current interest in deregulation and privatization type of marginal-cost pricing system for road use is being manifested in the social sciences, So far, (1_ ).) this interest has pertained to airline deregulation In this paper, only one argument in favor of such and to the replacement of municipal sanitation ser a change is implicitly considered: that such a sub vices with private alternatives. stitution would improve the safety standards under A more ambitious undertaking in this direction which the system of roads and streets currently involves the substitution of private or market operates. [See Block (1,2) for other arguments and place-oriented road and highway ownership and man- for a defense of the proposition that this scheme 8 Transportation Research Record 912 would be feasible. I This is accomplished by con A brief survey of the literature shows that these sidering a theory of highway safety regarding vehi objective conditions are usually listed under three cle malfunction from a point of view that holds pri headings: the vehicle, the driver, and the road. vate road ownership as a feasible alternative to the For example, Campbell (5, p. 210) cites the driver, current system. the road, and the vehicle as causes of accidents and The thesis of this paper is that the dismal high implores that we •move on all three fronts.• Oi way safety record is due to the absence of a free states the following (!, p. 22) : marketplace in the provision for, and management of, In the accident research literature, accident highways. under the status quo, there is no compe •causes• are typically classified under three tition, i.e., no financial incentives to urge man agers to control accidents. (Bureaucrats do not headings: the host, the accident agent, and the lose money when the death rate rises, nor is the environment. Injuries on the ski slope are road manager rewarded, as in private enterprise, if •caused" by (1) the reckless actions and physical a decline in accidents occurs.) condition of the skier, (2) the design and condi This lack of incentives has not gone completely tion of the ski equipment, and (3) the character unnoticed by the highway establishment. For ex istics of the slope and the snow. ample, Kreml <!• p. 2), a member of the President's Task Force on Highway Safety, calls for the govern Here the host and skier are readily seen as the ment to driveri the accident agent or ski equipment as the vehicle; and the environment or slope as the road. Establish an incentive system that will relate It must be stressed that there is nothing wrong federal aid to some overall measure of safety im with this division--if it is used as an organizing provement. under such a system, each state could tool--provided that the essential nature of the be eligible to receive from federal funds incen problem (entrepreneurial incentive) is not obliter ated. The difficulty with the division of highway tive payments for reduction in deaths ••• acci dents ••. etc. safety into driver, vehicle, and road is that it ig nores and masks the true solution. unless the phys Although in one sense this would be an improve ical elements, along with the financial incentives, ment compared with the current system, it is para motives, and purposes, are analyzed through a per doxically a step in the wrong direction. For what spective that makes entrepreneurship (7) its primary we need is not a superficial improvement of the focus, a solution to the problem will -not be found. government system, but a basic revamping. It is The chief drawback to the safety literature is that true that Kreml' s suggestion may have some benefi there is simply no room in the analysis for the only cial effects, but it depends on, and would further institutional arrangement that makes entrepreneur entrench, the management system that brought us to ship its centerpiece--the free market. Only govern the current crisis. Further, it is replete with ment solutions fall within the realm of this anal problems. ysis. First and most important, it would not be an in One manifestation of this mind-set is the divi centive system commensurate with the one provided by sion of the profession into "vehicleists," "driver the market. The financial rewards and penalties ists," and "roadists,• where each faction urges that would not be automatic as a result of an ongoing its realm is the most important and the key to the market process. Rather, Congress would have to act solution of the safety problem. and would presumably delegate this responsibility to Nader, perhaps the best known of the •vehicle• yet another government bureau.