BOZEMAN, Mont. — On a dark highway near Anchorage, Alaska, Specialist Steven Cavanaugh of the Army, who had survived 300 missions in Iraq, was critically injured this month on Dec. 2 when his vehicle hit a moose. Specialist Cavanaugh died four days later.
In the early morning darkness in Lincoln, Mont., in October, a pickup slammed into a 830-pound grizzly bear. The driver survived, but the bear was among seven grizzlies — a record for one year — killed by vehicles this year statewide.
Wildlife-related crashes are a growing problem on rural roads around the country. The accidents increased 50 percent from 1990 to 2004, based on the most recent federal data, according to the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University here.
The basic problem is that rural roads are being traveled by more and more people, many of them living in far-flung subdivisions. Each year, about 200 people are killed in as many as two million wildlife-related crashes at a cost of more than $8 billion, the institute estimated in a report prepared for the National Academies of Science.
Ninety percent of the accidents occur on rural two-lane roads, and the most common animal involved is a deer.
“I knew it was a big bear, but I didn’t know it was a grizzly,” said Steve Sandru, the driver who hit the bear near Lincoln on the way to his job as a logger. “A grizzly was the last thing I expected to see.”
The human death toll has risen from 111 in 1995 to around 200 in 2005, the most recent year for which figures are available. Officials say better designed highways would help lower the number.
“If you reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions, you would in all likelihood reduce fatalities,” said Rob Ament, research director for the Western Transportation Institute. “The priority would be to treat the hot spots, the areas with the most accidents.”
In addition to the loss of life, the accidents can be expensive. The average cost of a deer collision is $8,000, including repair, towing and cleaning up the carcass, while hitting an elk averages $18,000. If the driver strikes a much larger moose, expenses average about $30,000.
The total cost of the accidents to insurance companies exceeds $1 billion a year, the institute estimates. Pennsylvania has the most vehicle-wildlife crashes. Drivers there struck nearly 97,000 deer in the last half of 2005 and first half of 2006, according to estimates by State Farm, the insurance company.
In the report prepared for the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, the Montana institute said the number of wildlife crashes was far greater than federal statistics suggested — about 300,000 crashes involving wildlife are reported to the authorities a year — because many of the accidents are reported only to insurance companies.
In recent years, the institute estimates based on insurance industry data, the number of crashes ranged from one million to two million.
Marcel Huijser, a researcher in Missoula, Mont., who prepared the report for the Montana institute, said under-reporting of the accidents hindered efforts to prevent them.
Mr. Huijser added, “If you build a wildlife crossing in the wrong location, they won’t use it or use it to the extent you want them to.”
In a separate report delivered to Congress last month, the institute recommended ways to reduce wildlife-related accidents, including the construction of underpasses and overpasses with fences to keep wildlife off highways and directed toward safer crossings. Other methods include culling animals in places where accidents are numerous and “break the beam” systems, in which animals are fitted with collars that set off flashing lights when they approach a road.
Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada, has been a large laboratory for studying measures to prevent such collisions, which had been frequent on a four-lane highway that runs through the park in the heart of the wildlife-rich Canadian Rockies. Officials there have built 24 underpasses and overpasses, and the changes have reduced collisions by more than 80 percent, park officials said.
Researchers in Montana are conducting similar experiments along a stretch of Interstate 90 near Bozeman. They have built fences and an underpass to allow animals safe passage.
If they could duplicate the results from Banff, said Mr. Ament of the Western Transportation Institute, few animals and people would die and there would be substantial monetary savings as well.
“Wildlife accidents on Bozeman Pass cost the public a million a year” in crash costs, Mr. Ament said. “With an 80 percent reduction, that would be $800,000 in savings a year.”
The accidents can also take a toll on precarious wildlife populations. The report prepared for Congress found that vehicle collisions were a major source of mortality for 21 federally endangered or threatened species, like the red wolf, kit fox, Key deer and Florida panther.
“It’s a new and dubious record,” Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, said of the seven grizzlies killed this year on Montana roads. “There are more bears and everybody drives faster, and so roads are more of a problem.”
While the accidents are not threatening the bears’ long-term survival, Mr. Servheen said, they do threaten the species’ ability to expand its range.
The animal deaths can also be traumatic for many people.
Last month, a truck driver plowed through a herd of bighorn sheep on Highway 200 near Thompson Falls, Mont. The sheep often congregate there because they eat a salty de-icer the highway department sprays on a treacherous stretch of road. More than 350 wild sheep have been killed here since 1985.
Despite numerous warning signs with flashing lights, witnesses say the truck’s brake lights never came on as it drove through the herd, killing five adult ewes and two lambs. An investigator with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is looking into the accident to see if charges are warranted.
“A lot of people in Thompson Falls take pride in these sheep and are pretty upset,” said Bruce Sterling, a wildlife biologist with the state in Thompson Falls.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Schwarzenegger's health plan no humbug
Some of our state's elected officials and others on the Ebenezer Scrooge side of health care reform suggest that Gov. Schwarzenegger's holiday plans to wrap up a health care package with a bow and place it under the tree for all Californians may not be affordable. They urge caution and more delay, but let's not be so quick to forget Tiny Tim in this modern-day "Christmas Carol."
As everyone remembers from Charles Dickens' classic story, Tiny Tim was a disabled and very sick young boy, hovering near death. In the modern-day version, Tim's illness can be cured with affordable health care coverage, but his father, Bob Cratchit, works for Scrooge, a small California employer who cannot afford health care for his employees.
When visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present, we see how sick our current health care system has become - unaffordable or unavailable to millions of Californians. This is the broken system we have a chance to fix. How sad it would be if all that the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come could show us are the results of a "go-slow, incremental" approach that saves Tiny Tim, but leaves millions of others behind. There are many who still say that the door for better health care should be provided solely for children, while the parents of those kids would still be locked out in the cold. Tiny Tim is temporarily saved, but his father is one health care crisis away from economic disaster for him and his family. If that is our fate, it should surely scare the dickens out of all of us.
That is why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group stands with Republican Schwarzenegger and Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez for this historic opportunity for meaningful, comprehensive health care reform. There are many reasons why this plan has earned our support:
• It has been carefully crafted: This legislation didn't materialize like a ghost overnight. Rather, the governor thoughtfully crisscrossed California for more than a year seeking insights and counsel from thousands of Californians. He considered legislation and legislative language from both sides of the aisle. At the end of the Legislature's normal session, he called lawmakers back into special session to focus attention on this important issue. He published his own specific proposal, based on sound principles, to be debated and discussed for months. The bill that passed the Assembly on Monday, AB1x, is the product of that work.
• It emphasizes shared responsibility: The nightmare of many employers and employees has been that some would pay while others would not. From the beginning, a core principle for sensible reform has been a model of "shared responsibility." We all benefit from comprehensive health care reform. When we all prosper, we must all participate. This proposal spells out the responsibility of employers, hospitals, individuals and insurance companies. It emphasizes responsibility while still offering flexibility, by retaining an employer's ability to purchase employer-sponsored benefits that meet its needs and those of its workers. The state's anticipated $10.1 billion price tag on the legislation, after federal funding of $4.6 billion, is arguably a lower cost over time than the cost of inaction and further delay.
• It covers all Californians: One of every five people we pass on the street has no health care insurance whatsoever. A significant number are underinsured. Equally troubling, many working families are one crisis or emergency room visit from bankruptcy. This plan provides every Californian with the opportunity for coverage. When uninsured families stop using the emergency room as a "first resort" - the most expensive form of health care - then the hidden tax, roughly $1,900 per family, each Californian is paying to cover the uninsured can be eliminated and returned to our wallets.
• It emphasizes wellness rather than illness: This plan promotes diet, nutrition, prevention and exercise. Our current system spends billions treating the sick, rather than investing millions in keeping us healthy. Health insurance companies will be required to offer health rewards and incentive programs for employees as part of what they offer to their employers. This finally provides each of us with incentives to take better care of ourselves by reducing obesity, diabetes and smoking - three killers that are crippling California families and our economy.
If the state Senate acts quickly to pass the governor's package, the Scrooges among us will see the path to reform. And voters will have their chance to weigh in on the financing portion of the plan next November. Then we will all be able to join Tiny Tim as he recites his new closing line: "God bless us, every one. Not just some."
As everyone remembers from Charles Dickens' classic story, Tiny Tim was a disabled and very sick young boy, hovering near death. In the modern-day version, Tim's illness can be cured with affordable health care coverage, but his father, Bob Cratchit, works for Scrooge, a small California employer who cannot afford health care for his employees.
When visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present, we see how sick our current health care system has become - unaffordable or unavailable to millions of Californians. This is the broken system we have a chance to fix. How sad it would be if all that the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come could show us are the results of a "go-slow, incremental" approach that saves Tiny Tim, but leaves millions of others behind. There are many who still say that the door for better health care should be provided solely for children, while the parents of those kids would still be locked out in the cold. Tiny Tim is temporarily saved, but his father is one health care crisis away from economic disaster for him and his family. If that is our fate, it should surely scare the dickens out of all of us.
That is why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group stands with Republican Schwarzenegger and Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez for this historic opportunity for meaningful, comprehensive health care reform. There are many reasons why this plan has earned our support:
• It has been carefully crafted: This legislation didn't materialize like a ghost overnight. Rather, the governor thoughtfully crisscrossed California for more than a year seeking insights and counsel from thousands of Californians. He considered legislation and legislative language from both sides of the aisle. At the end of the Legislature's normal session, he called lawmakers back into special session to focus attention on this important issue. He published his own specific proposal, based on sound principles, to be debated and discussed for months. The bill that passed the Assembly on Monday, AB1x, is the product of that work.
• It emphasizes shared responsibility: The nightmare of many employers and employees has been that some would pay while others would not. From the beginning, a core principle for sensible reform has been a model of "shared responsibility." We all benefit from comprehensive health care reform. When we all prosper, we must all participate. This proposal spells out the responsibility of employers, hospitals, individuals and insurance companies. It emphasizes responsibility while still offering flexibility, by retaining an employer's ability to purchase employer-sponsored benefits that meet its needs and those of its workers. The state's anticipated $10.1 billion price tag on the legislation, after federal funding of $4.6 billion, is arguably a lower cost over time than the cost of inaction and further delay.
• It covers all Californians: One of every five people we pass on the street has no health care insurance whatsoever. A significant number are underinsured. Equally troubling, many working families are one crisis or emergency room visit from bankruptcy. This plan provides every Californian with the opportunity for coverage. When uninsured families stop using the emergency room as a "first resort" - the most expensive form of health care - then the hidden tax, roughly $1,900 per family, each Californian is paying to cover the uninsured can be eliminated and returned to our wallets.
• It emphasizes wellness rather than illness: This plan promotes diet, nutrition, prevention and exercise. Our current system spends billions treating the sick, rather than investing millions in keeping us healthy. Health insurance companies will be required to offer health rewards and incentive programs for employees as part of what they offer to their employers. This finally provides each of us with incentives to take better care of ourselves by reducing obesity, diabetes and smoking - three killers that are crippling California families and our economy.
If the state Senate acts quickly to pass the governor's package, the Scrooges among us will see the path to reform. And voters will have their chance to weigh in on the financing portion of the plan next November. Then we will all be able to join Tiny Tim as he recites his new closing line: "God bless us, every one. Not just some."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Reserve Bank to licence all insurers
All insurance providers – including life, health and general insurance – will have to be licensed by the Reserve Bank under a new prudential regulatory framework announced today by Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
“This is a major step forward in the regulation of the insurance sector and the result of a thorough review of regulations spanning two years. The proposals will encourage the maintenance of a sound and efficient insurance sector that promotes confidence among policyholders,” Dr Cullen said.
“The purpose of licensing is to ensure that insurers are ‘fit for business’ by demonstrating their capacity to manage the business they undertake, identify and manage their risks effectively, and have sufficient financial strength.
“The new legislation and associated details of the new regulatory framework will take time to implement. Legislation will be introduced in 2008, and is expected to be brought into force at some point in 2010.”
As the prudential regulator and supervisor of insurance providers, the Reserve Bank will be the authority that:
• licenses and de-licenses insurers, subject to appropriate checks and balances;
• prescribes and enforces compliance with the regulatory prudential requirements;
• applies fit and proper requirements to directors and senior managers;
• can intervene in the event of a situation of distress or the potential failure of a licensed insurer.
Financial strength ratings, from an approved ratings agency, will be mandatory for insurers. The costs of mandatory ratings are expected to be modest for most insurers relative to their size.
However, as the costs could be more significant for very small providers, insurers with annual gross premium income under $5 million will be exempt from the rating requirements, except for property and disaster insurers who are already required to obtain a rating.
“Ratings provide a powerful tool to assist policyholders, brokers and analysts to distinguish between lower and higher risk insurers and they reduce the need for a more intrusive form of regulation and supervision,” Dr Cullen said.
Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard said the prudential requirements would not be overly prescriptive and would place emphasis on directors' responsibilities to effectively manage the risks within their businesses.
"The insurance sector is an important part of the financial system which underpins economic activity," Dr Bollard said. "Policyholders need to have confidence in insurance providers that insurance claims will be
honoured. While prudential supervision can never eliminate the possibility of failures within the sector, licensing of all insurance providers helps to ensure that minimum requirements are applied to the sector in a consistent manner."
More detailed information is on the Reserve Bank website (see below).
“This is a major step forward in the regulation of the insurance sector and the result of a thorough review of regulations spanning two years. The proposals will encourage the maintenance of a sound and efficient insurance sector that promotes confidence among policyholders,” Dr Cullen said.
“The purpose of licensing is to ensure that insurers are ‘fit for business’ by demonstrating their capacity to manage the business they undertake, identify and manage their risks effectively, and have sufficient financial strength.
“The new legislation and associated details of the new regulatory framework will take time to implement. Legislation will be introduced in 2008, and is expected to be brought into force at some point in 2010.”
As the prudential regulator and supervisor of insurance providers, the Reserve Bank will be the authority that:
• licenses and de-licenses insurers, subject to appropriate checks and balances;
• prescribes and enforces compliance with the regulatory prudential requirements;
• applies fit and proper requirements to directors and senior managers;
• can intervene in the event of a situation of distress or the potential failure of a licensed insurer.
Financial strength ratings, from an approved ratings agency, will be mandatory for insurers. The costs of mandatory ratings are expected to be modest for most insurers relative to their size.
However, as the costs could be more significant for very small providers, insurers with annual gross premium income under $5 million will be exempt from the rating requirements, except for property and disaster insurers who are already required to obtain a rating.
“Ratings provide a powerful tool to assist policyholders, brokers and analysts to distinguish between lower and higher risk insurers and they reduce the need for a more intrusive form of regulation and supervision,” Dr Cullen said.
Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard said the prudential requirements would not be overly prescriptive and would place emphasis on directors' responsibilities to effectively manage the risks within their businesses.
"The insurance sector is an important part of the financial system which underpins economic activity," Dr Bollard said. "Policyholders need to have confidence in insurance providers that insurance claims will be
honoured. While prudential supervision can never eliminate the possibility of failures within the sector, licensing of all insurance providers helps to ensure that minimum requirements are applied to the sector in a consistent manner."
More detailed information is on the Reserve Bank website (see below).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)