Individuals more paternalistic than I think that soda, salt, cigarettes, and booze are dangerous enough to merit taxation and regulation. But the fact is an individual can use all of these things within the law and with moderation very safely, in which case the regulation and taxation is inefficient. The utilitarian question for paternalists then is what proportion of consumers use the product safely, and what proportion use it unsafely.
One product characteristic that I have not seen criticized on these grounds is top vehicle speed. My casual observance is that most new cars and trucks have top speeds well over 100 mph, with speedometers that go up to 120 or 140. Yet, for the vast vast majority of consumers, the vehicle cannot be driven at this speed legally, and doing so brings significant risk to other drivers. I am not sympathetic to paternalistic policies, so I don’t think limiting car speeds is good public policy. But I am puzzled that more paternalistic types do not argue for laws requiring manufacturers to sell vehicles with maximum top speeds set at 80 mph.
This map from wikipedia shows that in most areas in the country, you can’t drive at speeds over 75 mph, and nowhere can you take it over 80:
So why can you buy a product with a feature that cannot be used legally? Some consumers may take their cars to race tracks where you can legally exceed 80 mph, but this is probably a very small percent of drivers. And for this small minority you could make the top speed a default option that consumers can opt out by having a dealership remove the speed governor if they can prove they will use it at a race track. And really, are any drivers taking their 109 mph minivans to race tracks?
The case for more strict speed regulations is much stronger than many paternalistic regulations because, unlike salt, sugar, and tobacco, it causes a clear externality. Research has shown that the risk of being in an accident increases exponentially when a driver is going faster than the average speed, and that accident severity increases with speed. In 2007, 13,040 traffic fatalities, which is 31% of the total, were classified as speeding related. Contrast this with the 10,000 gun homicides in the U.S. each year.
So my question for paternalists is, would you support a law that required to a low maximum top speed to be built into all cars? If not, why?
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Edwin Perello
I’d say I would classify myself as paternalistic despite the cognitive dissonance perpetually jarring my head. I’m for legalization of most recreational drugs, lax immigration policy (or much more efficient/market-driven policy), and decriminalization of selling alcohol on Sundays. I am half-heartedly for paternalistic laws concerning cigarettes on a second-hand smoke merit but strongly recognize the double standard of limiting one person’s actions based on the imagined right of another to avoid the smoke. The soda and salt taxes are folly, in my opinion; I’d be more interested in reforming many farming subsidies and regulations and, if we’re going to be paternalistic, subsidize healthier foods in order to minimize the obesity problem that’s a burden on health care (the elephant in the room).
As for the idea of limiting the ability of vehicles to drive up to certain speeds, well… not all cars can drive at the speeds advertised on their speedometers. The cars that surely can drive at those max speeds are specifically designed to attract people who want those type of cars. Auto makers would be reluctant to make cars that seem to be very limited because consumers would avoid those cars. It was tried in 1979 by federal mandate (speedometers were supposed to show a maximum speed of 85) but that obviously failed. Nobody wants to have the b*#ch car on the block, nor would it keep anyone from driving past the speed limit.
If I had my way, I’d tack on another 10 mph to all speed limits just to avoid the frustration. That or police need to stop giving me tickets for driving 70 on a 55 an hour after I get off the expressway…
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
jazzbumpa
I’m probably far less paternalistic than you imagine. And more specifically knowledgeable about auto safety.
Edwin raises a number of good, practical points.
But here is the main thing to realize: speed, per se, does not cause accidents. Speed that is inappropriate to road, driving, and traffic conditions does. Specifically regarding speed and fatalities, consider that going 60 mph in a 25, 35, or 45 mph zone is wildly reckless, but would not be effected by an 80 mph governor.
Here is a driving fact very few people are aware of. There is a disproportionate number of vehicle pedestrian-incidents (very asymmetric with regard to outcome severity) at night on urban thoroughfares. Very few on highways (not many pedestrians.) Very few in neighborhoods (not much actual speeding.)
At night, driving 45 mph – a very moderate legal speed – you are out-driving your ability to stop. In other words, by the time you see something, it’s too late to react. Greatest danger is to a pedestrian on the left, for reasons related to driver’s field of view. Victims either walk in front of vehicles or get caught in a vehicle left turn.
Tragically, the pedestrian, even when he can clearly see the vehicle, does not realize that the driver can’t see him.
Bottom line: limiting top speed to 80 – or whatever number you might want to pick – will not be very effective, because speed danger relates to a combination of driving condition factors, rather than an absolute number.
I haven’t examined ultra high speed fatality data, but I have to believe that serious accidents at speeds over 80 mph are a small part of the big picture – possibly even rare events. So limiting top speed is probably not especially relevant to overall safety. In fact, I’m quite sure that if it were, NHTSA would be all over it. And they’re not.
Seat belts, by the way, are enormously effective at preventing not only fatalities, but not-fatal crippling injuries, under almost any crash scanario you can imagine.
This is a real paternalism success story. You probably don’t recall the 60′s and 70′s. There was enormous resistance to seat belt use, and seat belt use laws People do not always make rational decisions, even when confronted with stark data.
Cheers!
JzB
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Adam Ozimek
If you check out the link for the driving fatality statistic you’ll see that the 35% of speeding related accidents are on 55+ mph roads. I find it unlikely that all of these accidents are for speeding between 55 and 80 mph, and so it is likely that some chunk of it is 80 and above.
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
rjs
what software do i need to view your map?
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 6:56 pm
jazzbumpa
I’m using Firefox, and can’t see it, either.
JzB
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Adam Ozimek
I changed it to a .png. Can u guys see it now?
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 3:45 am
geaugailluminati
thanx, adam, its ok now; ive got IE8 & flash but there are some images elsewhere i still cant see…
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Hyena
I have to agree with JzB. Every morning I drive the 405 North into the Valley at about 90-100 mph. I’ve never come close to being in a wreck, largely because I’m rarely close to another car.
The most likely outcome is that speed governors would be deeply inefficient as a paternalist measure.
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Adam Ozimek
I eat lots of salt and sugar, sometimes in exorbitant amounts. But I’m healthy and I’ve never come close to having a health issue related to my intake of these. What matters to paternalists is what happens on average, not whether some individuals are inefficiently affected.
I agree with you, btw, but don’t think it’s consistent with paternalism to say what you’re saying.
Sunday ~ August 1st, 2010 at 11:28 pm
jazzbumpa
Yes the map is visible now.
With 31.75% of fatalities speed related, and 35.2% of them on hwys with a 55 mph limit, you have a potential maximum of 11.2 % of fatalities due to excessive speed on hwys. (I’m assuming nobody on a Rd with a speed limit less than 55 would ever go over 80.)
Lets assume that Hyena is the typical speeder, and all speed related fatalities occur with at least one vehicle going over 80. The maximum number of resulting fatalities is 4590. In reality, this is lower by some amount, since many of those crashes will be below 80. Let’s arbitrarily split the number in half. You now have potentially 2295 lives saved by an 80 mph governor.
This table says nothing about the effect of alcohol. Driving fast becomes much more dangerous when your looped, so, once again, speed is not the only factor, and the variables are not isolated. I can’t quantify this, but I’ll guess that a drunk at 80 mph is only marginally more dangerous than a drunk at 79 mph. Or 50, for that matter.
In contrast, deaths from hypertension approach 17,000, and salt isn’t regulated.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hypertension/stats.htm
Deaths from diabetes: over 71,000, and sugar isn’t regulated.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diabetes.htm
Tobacco use is the most potent disease-contributing cause cause of death in the world, with risk contributions to 6 of the 8 leading individual causes. Tobacco use in some public places is restricted, because second hand smoke is a real danger. But to say that tobacco use is regulated in any meaningful way would be an exaggeration.
http://smoking.ygoy.com/2009/05/23/statistics-for-death-caused-due-to-smoking-and-tobacco-use/
All of these hazards also have as their effects non-fatal conditions which are expensive to society: running up medical bills, loss of work time, reduced quality of life, etc.
If I were to be paternalistic, I have a lot of other work to do first before I gave any thought at all to putting a speed governor on a vehicle.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 am
Andrew
Another important motivation for paternalistic policies is revenue generation — specifically, shifting the incidence of fiscal burdens onto politically low-status groups such as smokers, drinkers and the obese. Philosophical arguments about the merits of paternalism obviously influence policy, but in many cases the desire for easy revenue drives lawmakers toward paternalism.
80-mph speed governors might make sense philosophically, but they’re likely to *reduce* revenue by reducing speeding ticketing rather than increasing it. That severely undermines its political attractiveness.
By contrast, higher speeding penalties both serve a paternalist goal and raise revenue — which is precisely why state-local legislatures routinely boost enforcement effort and statutory penalties during budget crises.
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am
jazzbumpa
Andrew -
I wouldn’t conflate paternalism and revenue generation. The motivations are completely different
Speeding is speeding. On the Pa turnpike you can get a ticket for over $100 at 1 mph over the limit. To generate more revenue, they can just get more stringent in enforcement.
I looked at FARS data, and can’t figure out a way to query.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/reportslinks.aspx
I wanted fatalities by speeding with speed limit >50, alcohol use, and restraint non-use. No go.
All univariate results
Fatalities:
In daylight 48%
Limit 55 and up
single veh 33%
multiple veh 24%
Alcohol impaired driving 31%
Restraint not used
car 28.5%
Lt truck 31.3%
Restraint use/non-use fatality %ages vary graetly with occupant location and age, and data seem to conflict from table to table, some indicating restraint non-use survivors as low as 19%.
I would imagine risky behavior is a personality trait, and high speed fatalities might involve disproportionate alcohol use and restraint non-use, but that is just a guess.
There has been a lot of success in auto safety improvement. Fatalities per
100 million vehicle miles traveled has steadily decreased from 1.73 in 1994 to 1.25 in 2008. In the 50′s, decreased from 7.3 to 5.1; 60′s pretty level at about 5. Steady reductions since.
http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
jazzbumpa
Just to be clear, all those fatality percentages are relative to the total number of fatalities, not any subgrouping.
JzB
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Andrew
Jazzbumpa,
I have to disagree here — revenue generation and paternalism are philosophically distinct, but they are inextricably linked within the actual policy formation process.
Paternalism that also generates revenue is, from a lawmaker’s perspective, clearly Pareto superior to paternalism that generates zero revenue.
If you’re trying to understand why vehicle speed governors are not popular, while speeding tickets are popular, you have to understand how the potential for revenue generation affects the incentives of policymakers.
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Logan
Something I haven’t seen mentioned is safety overhead which speed gives you, such as being able to accelerate to avoid an accident. Granted, these types of situations are rare, but they do happen, and backlash against a fatality because of the governor is likely to be severe.
A midway measure, and potentially far more useful, would be to mandate an annoying alarm which would automatically engage when the vehicle passed 80mph, or which would automatically communicate with the road and sound an alarm in any car which broke the speed limit by more then 5mph.
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Logan
Another thought… You did not mention the effects of speed limits in areas where speed limits exist but where they are routinely ignored, such as on freeways in major cities. In Chicago I’ve seen traffic routinely traveling at 80mph+ even though the speed limit was 70mph, and anyone who tried to follow the speed limit would cause an unsafe situation as traffic backed up, other drivers cut in, etc. In these areas it seems accepted wisdom that speed limits are ignored, yet they still exist. For show? Do people really feel safer knowing a speed limit exists which is barely enforced?
Monday ~ August 2nd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
jazzbumpa
Andrew -
Point taken. I am thinking of the philosophical motivation, you’re talking practicality.
Logan -
Ignoring the speed limit in highways is pretty much the central point of the discusssion. FARS, linked above, breaks fatalities down by urban vs rural, time of day, weather, speed limit, victims age and in-car position, plus pedestrians, and cyclists.
JzB