Turning a Blind Eye to the Risks of Auto Culture

In today’s New York Times article about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withheld research data on the risks of cellphone use while driving, one little nugget in particular caught my attention:

[Dr. Jeffrey Runge, then the head of the highway safety agency,] said [the chief of staff for Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta] asked him, "Do we have enough evidence right now to not create enemies among all the stakeholders?"

Those stakeholders, Dr. Runge said, were the House Appropriations Committee and groups that might influence it, notably voters who multitask while driving and, to a much smaller degree, the cellphone industry.

3651591971_1b54ed7d58.jpg We’re good at ignoring the risks of auto culture, even when they’re right in our faces. Photo by rocknroll_guitar via Flickr.

In other words, according to Dr. Runge, the Bush Administration decided that it didn’t want to alienate the very people who are endangered by cell phone use by telling them what they’re doing is dangerous.

Maybe the NHTSA shouldn’t have been so worried that people would be paying attention. As Adam Voiland points out in a post on DC Bicycle Transportation Examiner, Americans have been warned for years that air pollution is a grave threat to public health — and yet they seem to have become expert at ignoring that information. Voiland is hoping that a new study, which shows that babies born to mothers exposed to high levels of air pollution have lower IQs, will wake people up:

Medical researchers have long known that particulate matter from car exhaust can cause or exacerbate asthma, bronchitis, and lung cancer. More recently, they’ve discovered that our hearts are vulnerable too; exhaust particles cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each year by hastening coronary artery disease, heart failure, and heart palpitations. Bits of evidence have even emerged suggesting that the stuff coming out of tailpipes increases the risk of appendicitis, damages sperm, and causes premature births.

Yet, overall, we’re curiously unconcerned about air pollution, despite fairly frequent reminders that it remains a major health risk

[But] over a couple of years as a medical reporter…I quickly learned that nothing riles American parents up like the knowledge that invisible chemicals with ominous scientific-sounding names may be threatening the health of infants. And that’s exactly why I’m guessing that the latest news about air pollution may resonate — and by resonate I mean frighten — parents in ways that previous findings have not.

A study published this week in the journal Pediatrics found that pregnant mothers exposed to high levels of air pollution — specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — for the last few months of their pregnancies bore children with lower IQs than similarly matched mothers in areas with lower pollution. The children exposed to the most air pollution scored 5 points lower at age 5 on the intelligence tests than those exposed to lower levels. The mothers were exposed to a variety of common urban air pollutants, especially from cars, buses, and trucks.

Patrick Breysse, an environmental health researcher at Johns Hopkins told the Associated Press: "It’s a profound observation. This paper is going to open a lot of eyes."

I don’t know that I’m so hopeful. The ability of Americans to ignore the multiple health risks posed by the automobile culture is so deeply rooted. For so many people in this country, there are no alternatives to travel by automobile. Until public officials and cognizant voters unite to change that reality, I fear the majority of Americans will remain unable to face the risks posed by the mode of transportation that is central to their lives.

Other eye-opening items from around the network: Transportation Blog asks if Dallas HOV drivers should turn in cheaters. World Streets has a post on integrating bicycles and mass transit. And The WashCycle looks at the Green Routes to Work Act.

  • M

    I certainly hope this story would motivate people, but I agree in that I don’t know how realistic that is. The problems with auto culture risks is that 1)so much about them seems “normal” now that people see them as part of life that can’t be avoided (take car accidents & the resulting law suits, injuries and deaths for example) 2) people don’t see any obvious alternatives that seem to have the same benefits as cars (including speed, privacy, comfort, flexibility & status) 3)the city planners/people approving buildings all over the place keep on ignoring this issue and allow for apartment buildings, homes & parks to be placed adjacent to freeways (why don’t we only permit parking garages to be placed along the freeways and encourage everyone to get out of their car there and walk/bike/public transport themselves to the rest of the destinations?) 4)some of the dangers are not easy to connect to behaviors (i.e. respiratory problems over time).
    I think to a certain degree, people will put up with things being bad because they don’t even realize how bad they are anymore since it gradually built up over time.

    I personally live in an area of LA where living next to the train station means living next to the freeway. At first when I moved in, I didn’t think much of it. Over the years of non stop noise at all hours of the day, black dust all over my apartment, dodging cars trying to rush onto the freeway, my pets constantly getting cancer and now, no longer owning a car, it sometimes makes me wonder why anyone else would honestly choose to live how I am trying to live. I can manage to do most everything I need without the aid of the car, yet I am still living with some of the worst aspects of car culture.

    Maybe if everyone had to go through a stint of actually experiencing the very obvious dangers of car culture and how communities are being built around freeways and major streets, they would see things a little differently. I don’t even live in a relatively “poor” area of LA – I live in Studio City, and I can see examples of this problem. Then again, having everyone live in such a place is completely unreasonable, which I guess leads one back to wondering how exactly you can make people care and as a result, change their behavior.

  • DJB

    Leading causes of death in America from the CDC (2006):

    Heart disease: 631,636
    Cancer: 559,888
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599

    “In 2006, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 43,664 deaths, accounting for 24.4 percent of all injury deaths”
    (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf, p. 25)

    Lots of these deaths are directly or indirectly related to cars: accidents, health issues caused partially by inadequate exercise, air pollution, etc.

    I wish we treated this as seriously as 9/11. Lots more lives are at stake.

  • Spokker

    Give me car culture over bike culture any day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvqwva-ChQ



Pretty Please: U.S. DOT Asks Carmakers to Limit Onboard Distractions

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s signature issue has been distracted driving. He’s spent the last four years amplifying the heartbreaking voices of those who have suffered the consequences of this highly dangerous habit. The stories of the needless loss of so many people, especially children and teens, are tragic. Clearly, it’s time to take decisive action to stop […]

Fred Barnes: Americans Mainly Want to Stay in Their Cars

After yesterday’s electoral drubbing, the Obama administration will have to deal with a starkly different Congress when they make their expected push for a multi-year transportation bill early next year. We know that some influential House Republicans, like John Mica, don’t necessarily believe that bigger highways will solve America’s transportation problems. And we know that […]