Read on Twitter
The Governors Highway Safety Association doesn’t like being unmasked as an organization that accepts a lot of money from the automakers and auto insurance industry, then questioned as to why they won’t denounce automakers promoting speeding.
Criticizing GHSA for shallow studies & failure to acknowledge education/enforcement enforcement as practically meaningless in the absence of safe engineering practices must be wanting to move backwards. I get that it’s hard to counter NHTSA when your org is underwritten by them.
One of my favorite exchanges with Adkins was proposing zoning changes to disallow alcohol service in auto-oriented areas. His response: It won’t work in rural areas due to geography size. But he thinks enforcement in a large, rural geography is also not impractical? No response.
An example of GHSA’s shallow study methods is their pedestrian safety report and blaming marijuana sales. They cited and used states where the sale of marijuana had been approved but wasn’t occurring yet.
When GHSA published very nuanced language to insinuate phone-distracted pedestrians were a problem, they didn’t use FARS data as they did in the rest of the report.
Why? 7 years of FARS data showed it’s a non-issue. That didn’t fit GHSA’s narrative. http://www.kostelecplanning.com/the-fars-side-distracted-pedestrians/
Why? 7 years of FARS data showed it’s a non-issue. That didn’t fit GHSA’s narrative. http://www.kostelecplanning.com/the-fars-side-distracted-pedestrians/
In the end, GHSA is like our State DOTs: They have been coddled for years and viewed as traffic safety experts, which they are not. The traffic safety education industry is a house of cards built on “94% of crashes are caused by human error.” They make a lot of $ off that myth.
