Death Rates from Speeding Cars

Research from the Department for Transport indicates that:

• 1 in 40 pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at 30mph.
• At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent.
• A 1mph cut in average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent.

A study of 250 pilot schemes for 20mph zone saw crashes fall by 60% and child fatalities fell by 67%

Using a road is 8.5 times more dangerous than equivalent DIY activities. There is hope that there will be a change in attitudes towards road use. Previously people considered deaths from roads as an unavoidable necessity. However, various measures can effectively taken.

From an economic perspective the Cost Benefit analysis of implementing such measures gives a clear advantage to implementing the scheme. The extra time taken because of lower speeds is minimal compared to the cost of serious road accidents and fatalities.

The Department of transport have indicated that 20 mph zone could be enforced with average speed cameras rather than speed humps. Speed humps have been criticised for damaging cars and leading to higher use of petrol.

More details on 20mph zones at the Times

However, cutting taxes would leave government finances with an even bigger black hole. If they did cut petrol taxes they would have to increase taxes elsewhere.

• When people campaign for tax cuts, you rarely hear them say. “Cut Petrol Tax, Increase VAT”. “Cut petrol Tax, increase income tax”

Also there are many long term  benefits of higher petrol prices.

1. Less congestion
2. Greater incentives to increase fuel efficiency and find alternatives to crude oil.
3. Less Pollution.
4. Less Obesity, because people might actually walk / cycle the 500 metres to the shops.

As  a motorist, I don’t like paying £50 for a tank of petrol. But, at the same time, I don’t think the Government should cut tax on petrol. I hope they continue to increase tax on petrol. Other countries, especially America should definitely seek to increase tax on petrol.

• Should Government Cut Tax on Fuel Duty?

In addition to this increase in congestion charge some cars, in the lowest band, will be exempt from paying the congestion charge. Whilst this can be seen as rewarding environmentally friendly cars, it is also suggesting the congestion charge is becoming more of a pollution tax, rather than congestion charge. Although Band A cars pollute less, they still contribute to congestion. There are concerns that making these cars tariff free could increase congestion in the long term.

It is claimed by the transport commissioner, Peter Hendy, that traffic jams have fallen by a quarter in London since the congestion charge was extended westwards.

• How Effective is a congestion charge?
• Advantages of Electronic Road Pricing

• Congestion Charge

Ken Livingstone has quite a few good qualities. The Evening Standard is always trying to rubbish his period in office, but, that makes me suspicious. In terms of Economics, I think Ken deserves a lot of credit for having the political courage to introduce the congestion charge. The congestion charge has reduced some of London’s worst traffic problems. People don’t like paying taxes, but neither do people like sitting in a traffic jam. It annoys me how many voters expect solutions to problems without any tax.

Anyway this is a bit of a rant. But, you can see some arguments in favour of congestion charges here:

• Advantages of Congestion Charges 

A local authority wishes to reduce the use of cars in its area and is considering imposing a congestion charge as a mean of deterring the use of cars, ie every time that a car enters the area it will incur a charge .

Using the concepts of elasticities of demand , examine what you think will be the effect on how people will travel in this area if such a charge is imposed.

Driving already incurs taxes, most notably, petrol tax. However, petrol tax doesn’t discriminate for where congestion is worst. Therefore, councils could place a congestion charge on driving into a certain area. This extra cost would shift the supply curve to the left. The higher price would lead to a reduction in demand for driving in that area.

Diagram of Congestion Tax 

If the tax is quite significant, such as £7 per journey, you would expect it to have the effect of reducing demand. However, it is uncertain how much demand will fall by. If demand for driving in this area is inelastic, the higher price will only have a relatively small effect on reducing demand. However, if demand is elastic then there will be a bigger % reduction in demand.

There are various factors which will determine the elasticity of demand.

1. Are there alternative modes of transport? e.g. in London, commuters can use the underground, but, in Birmingham there is no underground system. Therefore a congestion charge may be less effective in Birmingham
2. How necessary is it for people to drive in that area? For example, is there good parking on the outskirt of the area? If the main shopping centre is in the zone, people may still need to drive there.
3. Over Time. Overtime the congestion charge may become more effective. i.e. people have time to buy a bike. In the longer term, shops and businesses may relocate outside the congestion charge.

See also:

• Advantages of Electronic Pricing
  
• Congestion and market failure

Increased risk of accident.

If we break the speed limit there is a greater chance of being involved in an accident. Since, at least, 3,000 people per year die on British roads; we should take all possible steps to reduce the number of fatalities. As well as the loss of life behind every accident and fatality lies an enormous economic cost. – loss of earning, hospital treatment e.t.c. The economic cost of driving slower is quite minimal. True some journeys may take a little longer, but, generally speaking the cost is limited

Increased pollution

This applies particularly to motorway driving. When we drive at higher speeds engines become more inefficient increasing carbon emissions.

Makes pedestrians feel unsafe

Speed cameras often come through local public pressure. Local residents wish to reduce the noise and fear factor of speeding cars therefore, they welcome speed cameras. Lower speeds makes it more pleasant to live by busy roads

Advantages of Speed Cameras

Speed Cameras Raise Revenue

Speed cameras raise revenue which can be used to offset other taxes. If you stick to the speed limits you will never pay this type of tax. However, if you break the speed limit, you will have to pay this optional tax. Therefore, good drivers in effect, get a lower tax burden. This is the best type of tax because it only penalises those who cause the problems – of excess speeding. People complain that speed cameras are just another tax, but, that is not a problem.

Reasons to Abolish Speed Cameras

It is argued that speed cameras are ineffective in reducing accidents because people only slow down for the camera, but, then speed up when they have passed it.

However, there is a solution to this problem introduce average speed cameras. These could be particularly effectively used on bendy rural roads, which have the highest fatality rate for any road.

Speed Cameras on Motorways

Motorways are statistically the safest form of transport. A speed limit of 70mph enforced by speed cameras may seem unnecessary most motorway drivers exceed this. There may be a case for raising the motorway driving speed from 70 to 80mph. But, why not have random speed camera’s to catch people doing over 90mph?

see also:

• advantages of speed cameras 

I mentioned 4 benefits of increasing the driving age to 18, from 17, which include:

1. Cut the number of deaths.

The highest death rate for drivers is amongst the age group 17-25. If the driving age is increased there would a be a fall in fatalities arising from motor car use. This has a significant economic benefit.

2. Cut Congestion.

Less drivers on the road will reduce congestion and therefore, reduce costs for firms

3. Reduce Obesity

Driving encourages the population to become lazy and obese. If people can’t drive they will be forced to walk, use public transport and cycle. This will help lead to a healthier population, which in turn leads to less strain on the NHS

4. Young Drivers overestimate their skill

Young drivers, especially male drivers, are likely to overestimate their ability to drive at speed and in difficult conditions. For people of school age, there is often great peer pressure to drive excessively and in a dangerous way.

However, to be fair you could make quite a good case against raising the driving age to 18 or 21.

• Disadvantages of Raising Driving Age

• Is public transport good enough to provide an alternative?
• Reduce mobility of young people can have an economic cost, e.g. firms less able to have a flexible labour market.
• Lower demand for cars and therefore lower output in the car industry. (However, jobs may be created on public transport)
• Denial of Freedom. – Not really economic argument, but, a powerful political idea.

Network Rail have published statistics showing that demand for rail services has increased by nearly 45 per cent between 1996-97 and 2006-0. Annual growth is increasing by about 8%. Yet, the DTI is sticking to its forecast of 3% growth per year, in an effort to avoid spending more money.

Demand for Train Travel is increasing for Various Reasons

• Congestion on UK Roads. Demand for roads is also increasing faster than supply. To avoid lengthening traffic jams, people are turning to rail transport
• Long period of economic Growth. Higher economic growth causes increased business and therefore increases the demand for transport.
• Higher House prices in City Centres. People can often not afford to live close to their place of living, therefore they prefer to commute long distances on trains.
• Environmental Awareness – Trains are seen as an environmentally friendly alternative to driving, helping to reduce global warming.
• New Services being offered by Privatised Companies.

However, the increase in demand is not being met by a corresponding increase in capacity. The government have been reluctant to invest in new projects and have preferred to spend small amounts of money on minor projects.

Network Rail, which runs the UK train infrastructure says there is an increasing phenomena of overcrowding on UK trains. For example, over 100,000 people have to stand, for upto an hour, on London-bound trains each morning.

The response of the Government to this issue has been most dissappointing. They seem unconcerned about a vital aspect of the UK economy.

There reluctance to invest and subsidize rail  travel is misplaced. From an economic perspective, we can see that rail travel has clear positive externalities. The Social Benefit of Trains is greater than the private benefit.

• Reduce congestion on roads, – therefore less time wasted and cheaper costs for firms
• Reduced pollution and CO2 emissions. Trains have lower emissions per passengers than cars and buses.
• Investment in railways would help industry and business. Therefore, it is an investment that can be recouped through improved economic growth.

Postscript (If you are one of the 100,000s of people who spend time standing on a train, take heart from a recent survey which said, 30 minutes standing is an excellent way to lose weight )

 Related

• Should the Government run train services in the UK
  
• We can’t cope with this many passengers on trains at Times