On
this day, June 24, 1966, the United States Senate passed the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act by a unanimous vote. Later that summer the House
passed their version of the bill 318-3 and on September 9, 1966, signed by
President Johnson, the Act became law.
The
origins of the law can be credited to the work of one man: Ralph Nader, an
attorney and consumer advocate, who a year earlier had published “Unsafe at Any
Speed”, a condemnation of the General Motors Corvair and the American auto
industry’s lax safety standards.
In
1965 there were 47,089 auto deaths in the United States, or 5.30 deaths for
every 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The death rate was 24.235 out
of every 100,000 population. The auto fatality rate had risen the past four
years an average of 5.625%.
In
spite of fierce industry resistance and reported attempts to smear the
reputation of Nader, Congress passed the legislation creating the National
Highway Safety Bureau, or what eventually became the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
The
bureau’s first director, William Haddon, developed a scientific approach based
on work of a Dr. John E. Gordon. The work suggested that auto accidents behaved
like diseases and were dependent on three factors, the host (vehicle), the
agent (driver), and the environment in which the agent and host find
themselves. They sought to improve safety in all three areas.
NHTSA
regulations over the years have mandated safety improvements to automobiles
(host): seat and shoulder belts, head rests, energy-absorbent steering columns,
rollover protection, dual brakes, shatter-resistant windshields, and improved
rear lighting (a center brake light and white backup lights).
NHTSA
regulations have mandated actions on human factors (agent): stricter traffic
safety laws, mandatory driver’s education, more punitive drunk driving judgments,
mandatory seat belt use, and child safety seats.
NHTSA
guidelines have suggested environmental improvements: the addition of edge and
center-line stripes and reflectors, breakaway signs and utility poles, improved
median structures, improved guardrails, grooved pavements, rumble strips, and
highway exit crash cushions.
What
has all of this work accomplished? According to the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS), in 2014, the last year full statistics are available
and comparing to 1967 numbers when the NHTSA began operations, there were 32,675
traffic fatalities, a 36% reduction in absolute numbers. That is 1.08% fatalities
per 100 VMT or a reduction of 79%, and 10.25% per 100,000 population or a
reduction of 60%. Those are inarguably impressive improvements.
Wouldn't it be great if we could accomplish progress like that with gun deaths in America?
Gun
rights activists love to point out that a gun can’t act by itself, that it’s
the user that makes a gun bad. As if to say, “Well, that settles it; there
shouldn’t be any legislation restricting gun ownership”.
A
car can’t be bad by itself either. It requires a key, fuel, registration,
insurance, and occasional inspections. And you know what, that car still can’t
function, because it needs a driver. It is the combination of car and driver that can make for a lethal cocktail.
However, laws have tried to mitigate the dangers. Drivers
must be of a responsible age and have mandatory education. They must pass both
written and physical driving tests. They must have good vision, or be
restricted. They must obey the laws or be punished in some way. Most would agree
these are reasonable requirements.
Shouldn’t
drivers of guns demonstrate those same capabilities and good judgment? Gun
control, as least sensible gun control, shouldn’t be about restricting all guns
from all people. But it should be about making sure someone who is buying a gun
has the judgment and good sense not to violate sensible gun management.
If
you’re a responsible gun owner, you bought your guns legally, you keep your arms
locked safely away from idle or illegal hands, and you’ve educated yourself on the
proper operation and maintenance of your weapons. You see good reason for
keeping weapons out of the hands of people who have no business owning a
firearm.
Oh
wait, see that right there is where there seems to be a problem. Strident gun
rights activists couldn’t give two beans about those illegal or irresponsible
gun owners. They don’t think there should be any kind of mandatory education
for something as dangerous as a gun. They don’t think there should be any
restrictions on gun ownership at all, and that makes no sense.
Yes,
just as no amount of vehicle legislation can remove 100% of the risk of driving
on our nation’s highways, no amount of gun control legislation will reduce wrongful
firearms deaths to zero. But it could make a difference, and in your life.
If
it’s your grandchild, or wife, or friend who survives today because of mandatory
child safety seats or backup lights or cell phone restrictions, it’s impossible
to prove. If they’re one of the 17,000 plus that were not killed on our
highways in 2014 because of the passage of the NHTSA, Mr. Ryan, you can thank
your lucky stars there was bipartisanship in 1966.
So
Mr. McConnell, isn’t it worth trying to save a few lives from being firearms
victims by adopting mandatory gun owner education, or tougher background checks,
or restricting magazine sizes? Isn’t it at least reasonable to sit at the table
and see what you can cooperatively create to save one life?
Make
it personal. Because I can assure you, if one of your family members were to be
the victim of firearm violence, thoughts and prayers, and a check from Mr.
LaPierre won’t make you feel any better.
