New Puzzle: Why Fewer are Killed in Car Crashes
*
By JOSEPH B. WHITE
The number of drivers involved in fatal accidents who were eating, talking on a phone or otherwise distracted rose 42% from 2005 to 2008. But that's just one way to read a new study of highway deaths.
Another way is that "inattentive" or distracted driving was recorded as a "primary" factor for just 7% of the 50,430 drivers involved in fatal accidents in 2008. The broader trend was that the number of total road fatalities dropped in 2009 to 33,963, down 22% from 43,510 in 2005. That's the fastest rate of decline in traffic deaths in peacetime since the dawn of automotive mass production in 1913.
The dramatic decline in highway fatalities in the U.S. since 2005 is a piece of good news that's also a bit of a mystery. Is it the result of better vehicle safety technology? Less stupid, reckless behavior? Smarter strategies for easing teens into the responsibilities of driving? Or just an unexpected positive side effect of a slumping economy?
A new study by two University of Michigan researchers of detailed federal crash statistics from 2005 to 2008 suggests all these reasons could be behind the reduced death toll.
Consider distracted driving. The dangers of texting or talking on a phone while driving have received a lot of attention, including from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Mr. LaHood has been relentless on the issue, suggesting that he would seriously consider banning all cellphone use in automobiles, including hands-free systems. That's rattled car makers, who have used sophisticated hands-free telecommunications technology as a selling point in many new vehicles.
The federal highway fatality data analyzed by University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute researchers Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle suggest that talking and texting behind the wheel are a smaller problem than, for instance, motorcycle deaths.
Messrs. Sivak and Schoettle found that in 2005, 2,369 fatal accidents were blamed on "inattentive" driving–including eating, talking or using a phone. By 2008, inattentive driving was blamed for 3,366 deadly crashes.
By comparison, the number of fatalities involving motorcycles grew by 14% to 5,129 deaths in 2008 from 4,492 in 2005. The researchers noted this trend is consistent with rising motorcycle ownership among "middle-aged men with little or no prior experience."
A Transportation Department spokeswoman said, in an email Tuesday, that a broader definition of distraction-related fatalities grew to 16% of all traffic deaths in 2008 from 10% in 2005. The rate leveled off in 2009, around the time of Mr. LaHood's national campaign against distracted driving and enactment of tougher state laws on texting and phoning while driving, she wrote.
The department also is pushing to curb drunk driving and promote seat-belt use and new vehicle safety technology, the spokeswoman wrote. This week it launched a new effort called "No Refusal" that encourages police officers to call judges who will quickly authorize warrants to obtain blood samples from people who refuse a breath-alcohol test in an effort to avoid prosecution.
Mr. Sivak says that when he looks at the causes of crashes, he zeroes in on alcohol. "That is the biggie," he says.
Alcohol and speed, he says, explain why so many people die on the highway alone, without hitting another car. Out of 34,017 total accidents in 2008 ascribed in federal data to a collision, about 62%—just over 21,000—involved a single-vehicle crash. Such deadly wrecks declined by 9% between 2005 and 2008, less than the 13% decline in deadly collisions overall.
So what's helping to reduce deaths? Technology deserves some credit, according to the data. Deaths in side-impact crashes declined between 2005 and 2008 at a faster rate than the decline for deaths overall. That suggests that side airbags are helping more people survive crashes, the researchers found.
The Michigan study found a nearly 20% decline in deaths among young drivers, age 16 to 25. Among the possible reasons: the increasing number of states that use graduated licensing programs that delay granting full driving privileges until teens have more experience, and rising teen joblessness.
The exact role of the economy in declining highway deaths is a big unknown. Messrs. Sivak and Schoettle highlight pieces of data that suggest that as the economy slowed down, so did motorists.
The number of deadly accidents in which there was no evidence that the driver swerved to avoid the crash, an indicator of excess speed, dropped by more than 20% between 2005 and 2008, according to federal data. (The number of such crashes is still quite high—nearly 23,000 in all for 2008.)
"The slower the speed, the more likely an avoidance maneuver is possible," the researchers wrote.
Fatal accidents during rush hours also declined more sharply than overall deaths. The 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. morning rush claimed 3,236 lives nationwide in 2008, down 16.7% from 2005. Deaths between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. fell by nearly 18%. The deadliest hours on the road? The period between 6 p.m. and 8:59 p.m. —still the rush hour in many cities. In 2008, 5,342 people died in crashes during those hours, down 13.1% from 2005.
What happens when the economy rebounds? Fatalities and injuries have tended to drop during economic slowdowns, but when the economy recovers, they have not rebounded all the way to pre-recession levels, the Transportation Department says.
Mr. Sivak says he expects deaths will climb. "There are no magic solutions here," he says.
Write to Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com
