Wrong for So Long in So Many Ways

It seemed as though half my Twitter feed today was links to this Atlantic article called Americans shouldn't have to drive, but the law insists on it... except the tweets about the driver of a van who crashed into a bus stop in North Minneapolis and injured six people (three severely). The two topics are, of course, connected.

The Atlantic piece, written by law professor Gregory Shill, is pure gold. He reminds us that 40,000 Americans are killed and 4 million injured each year by the drivers of automobiles, not counting everyone harmed by vehicle pollution, let alone climate change. From zoning to the tax code, personal motorized vehicles have been designed as the default way to move in our country, regardless of the many negative consequences.

Some favorite quotes:

Those who walk or bike to work receive no commuter tax benefit, while those who drive receive tax-deductible parking. ...the tax code gives car buyers a tax rebate of up to $7,500 when their new vehicles are electric or hybrid; buyers of brand-new Audis, BMWs, and Jaguars can claim the full $7,500 from the American taxpayer. Environmentally, these vehicles offer an improvement over gas-powered cars (but not public or active transit). Even so, 85 to 90 percent of toxic vehicle emissions in traffic come from tire wear and other non-tailpipe sources, which electric and hybrid cars still produce. They also still contribute to traffic, and can still kill or maim the people they hit. Why are we taxing bus riders to pay rich people to buy McMansions and luxury electric SUVs? (emphasis added)

That tire-wear point is something I've heard before and that very few people know. Remember that as one of the many reasons we can't "just electrify" our current transportation modes.

States don’t require drivers to carry enough insurance to fully compensate people they hit. The most common amount of required bodily-injury coverage is just $25,000; in some states, it’s zero. A number of states also employ no-fault systems associated with increased fatality risks. This all lowers the up-front cost of driving, but those who lack the protection of a vehicle suffer disproportionately.

Tort law is supposed to allow victims to recover for harms caused by others. Yet the standard of liability that applies to car crashes — ordinary negligence — establishes low expectations of how safe a driver must be. Courts have held that a higher standard — strict liability, which forces more careful risk taking — does not apply to driving. Strict liability is reserved for activities that are both “ultrahazardous” and “uncommon”; driving, while ultrahazardous, is among the most common activities in American life. In other words, the very fact that car crashes cause so much social damage makes it hard for those who are injured or killed by reckless drivers to receive justice.

I have to pull out one sentence from that section for extra emphasis: Strict liability is reserved for activities that are both “ultrahazardous” and “uncommon”; driving, while ultrahazardous, is among the most common activities in American life.

A couple of solutions that Shill mentions toward the end of the piece are litigation to challenge dangerous street designs (basically, organizing to seek monetary damages or the redesign of streets as redress), or somehow seeking recognition of the right to freedom to walk/move, perhaps working within the Americans with Disability Act. Those two ideas seem complementary to me as a strategy.

I highly recommend the whole article as a primer in beginning to recognize the scope of the car problem we face in this country.