We estimated how much the Federal government and state/local government pay for different kinds of crashes in the United States. Government costs include reductions in an array of public services (emergency, incident management, vocational rehabilitation, coroner court processing of liability litigation), medical payments, social safety net assistance to the injured and their families, and taxes foregone because victims miss work. Government also pays when its employees crash while working and covers fringe benefits for crash-involved employees and their benefit-eligible dependents in non-work hours. We estimated government shares of crash costs by component. We applied those estimates to existing US Department of Transportation estimates of crash costs to society and employers. Government pays an estimated $35 billion annually because of crashes, an estimated 12.6% of the economic cost of crashes (Federal 7.1%, State/local 5.5%). Government bears a higher percentage of the monetary costs of injury crashes than fatal crashes or crashes involving property damage only. Government is increasingly recovering the medical cost of crashes from auto insurers. Nevertheless, medical costs and income and sales tax losses account for 75% of government's crash costs. For State/local government to break even on a 100%-State funded investment in road safety, the intervention would need to have an unrealistically high benefit-cost ratio of 34. Government invests in medical treatment of illness to save lives and improve quality of life. Curing a child's leukemia, for example, is not less costly than leaving that leukemia untreated. Safety should not be held to a different standard.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256813PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

crash costs
12
government
11
united states
8
state/local government
8
government pays
8
cost crashes
8
costs
7
crashes
7
costs crashes
4
crashes government
4

Similar Publications

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping mobility through autonomous vehicles (AVs), which may introduce risks such as technical malfunctions, cybersecurity threats, and ethical dilemmas in decision-making. Despite these complexities, the influence of consumers' risk preferences on AV acceptance remains poorly understood. This study explores how individuals' risk preferences affect their choices among private AVs (PAVs), shared AVs (SAVs), and private conventional vehicles (PCVs).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Multifarious applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are thriving in extensive fields and facilitating our lives. However, the potential third-party risks (TPRs) on the ground are neglected by developers and companies, which limits large-scale commercialization. Risk assessment is an efficacious method for mitigating TPRs before undertaking flight tasks.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: Incorrect use of child restraints is a long-standing issue, limiting the protection offered by child restraints in the event of a crash. Child restraint fitting services are a measure to reduce incorrect use but have limited reach and availability to underserved populations. Virtual child restraint fitting services have the potential to increase the reach and availability, but as with any digital intervention, need to be acceptable to users to be effective.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: Electric biking (e-biking) is a rapidly growing recreation, sport, and mode of transportation that often presents to emergency departments (EDs) with high-impact head injuries. This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of e-bike-related concussions and closed-head injuries (CHI) to inform more effective injury prevention strategies.

Methods: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance (NEISS) was queried for e-bike related concussions and CHIs presented to national EDs from 1 January 2013-31 December 2022.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A comprehensive multi-objective framework for the estimation of crash frequency models.

Accid Anal Prev

February 2025

School of Civil & Environment Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, 4000 QLD, Australia. Electronic address:

A common and challenging data and modeling aspect in crash analysis is unobserved heterogeneity, which is often handled using random parameters and special distributions such as Lindley. Random parameters can be estimated with respect to each observation for the entire dataset, and grouped across segments of the dataset, with variable means, or variable variances. The selection of the best approach to handle unobserved heterogeneity depends on the data characteristics and requires the corresponding hypothesis testing.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!