Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Pity about mass transit - wouldn't use as much oil I suppose. :-( http://ens-news.com/ens/may2003/2003-05-15-10.asp Bush Rolls Out Transportation Spending Plan By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, May 15, 2003 (ENS) - The Bush administration unveiled a $247 billion, six year transportation spending plan Wednesday that aims to improve safety programs, reduce traffic congestion and minimize project delays by reforming environmental reviews. The spending plan - dubbed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) - lays out the administration's transportation spending priorities and reflects an overall increase of 13 percent over the existing program, which is set to expire in October. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the plan is the largest investment in highways and public transit in American history. It reflects the premise that "saving lives" is the number one priority, Mineta said, and furthers "the administration's commitment to dramatically reducing the number of highway injuries and fatalities." Some 43,000 Americans are killed annually on the nation's highways and $230 billion is spent each year on highway fatalities and injuries. The proposal doubles funding for safety programs, provides $190 million for federal highway spending and $46 billion for mass transit, earmarks funds to give trucks better access to rail yards and ports, and affords states greater flexibility in how they spend federal transportation funds. But critics say the $247 billion plan falls far short of the investments needed to address the nation's transportation challenges and many question the priorities the administration has laid out in its proposal. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that $50 billion in highway investments is needed to improve roadway conditions and reduce traffic congestion, but SAFETEA averages some $32 billion a year over the six year life of the plan. Growing traffic is an increasing problem in many cities around the United States. (Photo by Ian Britton courtesy FreeFoto.com) The issue of transportation funding is a contentious one, but there appears to be growing consensus that much more investment is needed. Legislation on Capitol Hill calls between $42 million and $50 million a year, a target far higher than what the administration has proposed. The administration could face opposition for not hiking the existing 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax, something some in Congress have suggested is needed to fund highway and mass transit projects. Funds for mass transit increase only two percent to $46 billion and critics say the administration is trying to shift the burden of mass transit projects on to the states, just as state governments face their worse fiscal crisis in history. The plan reduces the federal share of transit financing for new rail projects from 80 percent to 50 percent, but leaves the 80/20 ratio in effect for highway projects. Under the proposal, guaranteed highway funding would grow 24 percent over six years, but guaranteed mass transit funding drops eight percent over the same period. Funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program remains flat under SAFETEA, a decision that environmentalists say will shortchange a program on the brink of unprecedented expansion. CMAQ was designed to fund transportation projects that reduce emissions in non-attainment and maintenance areas, as well as to fund projects that slow the growth of congestion, reduce emissions, and maintain economically viable and mobile communities. New air quality standards set to go into effect this year and this will result in more areas being designated as not in attainment with air quality rules. "SAFETEA calls for billions of dollars to be showered on America's transportation needs, but it fails to include a strong commitment to protecting public health," said Dr. John Balbus, a physician who heads the environmental health program at Environmental Defense. "It weakens accountability for meeting clean air goals that protect public health from the leading source or toxic pollution in most communities - the exhaust from gas and diesel engines," Balbus said. Environmentalists say the proposal would significantly weaken protections for historical sites, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges and diminish the power of resource managers to evaluate effects of transportation projects on natural, cultural and historic resources, and transfer that power to the DOT. In addition, they believe the plan undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the federal government to assess the environmental impact of its actions and to inform the public of alternatives. The proposal would limit appeals of environmental reviews of transportation projects to 180 days after the decision has been made, a move environmentalists say c
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
My brother was driving through the desert in Namibia a few weeks ago and fell asleep at the wheel. He ended up on the other side of the road and hit (sideswipped) a power pole (which woke him up). He was fine and the car drivable, but it could have been much worse (as he points out - he could have missed the pole and driven off into the desert, fast asleep) On Mon, 5 May 2003 03:05 pm, Doug Foskey wrote: > On Sun, 4 May 2003 03:00, you wrote: > > One problem ( that I don't know what the rate is elseware ) that we have > > in the western US, due to allot of the long miles between stopping > > points, is a fairly high rate of auto accidents due to Highway Hypnosis, > > and drivers falling asleep behind the wheel. One particular incident we > > had last summer, was the death of 9 forest firefighters because the > > driver of the van they were in, fell asleep. Things like this can not > > be attributed to vehicle design, but, directly to drivers, and the people > > in charge of the drivers ( the driver is given X amount of time to get > > from one place to another and if they don't make it on time they are > > penalized ). > > > > Greg H. > > You guys always have to have something bigger! > We have real distances between petrol stops in the Northern Territory: > 220Km (about 140miles) between petrol stations (and any habitation) & this > is on a major highway between Adelaide & Darwin. > Often at night, when I go to Sydney, I have 100Km between petrol stations > (but I can go 725Km to Sydney on less than a tank anyway - so who cares!) > The only stops I make are for a meal, or toilet. > But after all of that I agree that micro-sleeps are a killer. (& there > has been research done n Australia). There are restrictions on how far a > truck (& heavy vehicles) can travel between rest stops. The Transport dept > has checkpoints to check these rests too. (big fines for non-compliance) > regards Doug > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 "And some run up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stones to pieces wi' hammers, like so many road makers run daft. They say it is to see how the world was made." Sir Walter Scott, St. Ronan's Well 1824 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping & No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
This report has something to say about travel in the US - whatever happened to the old WWII fuel-saving slogan "Is your journey really necessary?" Just how often, or how seldom, is the answer really "yes"? Chuck in the food miles issue (food travels an average 1,500 miles to reach US supermarket shelves) and all the other unnecessary miles and it all adds up not only to huge amounts of wasted energy (and wars, no less, to secure the supplies so you can waste yet more) but to needless deaths. --- U.S. workers are playing musical chairs with their jobs at the price of less productivity and more congestion and pollution, according to new census data released this week. For example, take Arlington County, Va., where 70 percent of resident workers leave the county every day for jobs elsewhere -- and an even greater number of people stream into the county to work. Unfortunately, Arlington County isn't an exception: Around the country, 17 counties export and import at least half their workforce every weekday. And many more are following a similar pattern, with 23 percent of Americans working outside their county of residence in 2000. Jobs and workers are increasingly ending up far apart from each other, which is one reason for the nation's "huge increase in travel time," according to Phillip Salopek of the population division of the U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0307/p02s01-ussc.html March 07, 2003 edition Even with jobs in suburbs, commutes get longer More counties have a large share of imported workers and 'bedroom' residents. By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Every weekday morning, Arlington County, Va., wakes up to a grinding form of musical chairs. Some 70 percent of its resident workforce leaves the county to work somewhere else. Meanwhile, an even bigger phalanx of nonresidents come in to the county to do their jobs. The excess congestion, pollution, and lost productivity makes smart-growth advocates say: Isn't there a better way to handle sprawl than to swap suburban populations during the day? Arlington can't be written off as a fluke. Gilpin County, just outside Denver, sends out nearly as great a share of workers as Arlington and gets a bigger share back. West Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana sends out 60 percent of its workers and imports 60 percent more to do its work. In all, 17 counties from Florida to Massachusetts to Colorado export and import at least half their workforce on a typical weekday. And scores more counties are moving toward that dubious distinction, according to new census figures released this week. Even though jobs are following Americans out of the cities and into the suburbs, it seems the exoduses still don't line up. Indeed, jobs and workers often end up far apart. That's a major factor behind the three-minute increase in the nation's average commute during the 1990s. And it explains why a growing share of Americans are crossing county lines to reach their jobs. 'A huge increase' "We certainly see a huge increase in travel time," says Phillip Salopek, a demographer in the population division of the US Census Bureau in Suitland, Md. "Jobs move out to the suburbs, and employees move to exurbs." The new data suggest that in the vast majority of counties - rural as well as urban - an increasing share of employees is crossing county lines to get to work. Nationally, 23 percent of Americans worked outside their county of residence in 2000 - up from 20 percent in 1990 and 18 percent in 1980. While much of this rise comes from workers' desire to live in less congested places, other factors also play a role. Take housing prices. Some residential markets have gotten so pricey workers can't afford to live near their work. San Francisco County, Calif. - one of the nation's most expensive housing markets - imports nearly half its workforce. Geography also plays a role. Because counties are smaller in the East, workers are more likely to cross them than workers in the West. Thus, the census county data underestimate the amount of commuting in the West. Workers' skills and needs can also affect commuting. Arlington County, the home of the Pentagon, attracts highly skilled workers who may choose to live in more exclusive areas. At the same time, its housing may prove too costly for the people who staff the county's low-end service jobs, suggests Alan Pisarski, an independent travel-behavior consultant in Falls Church, Va., and author of "Commuting in America." He adds that since three-quarters of workers live in households with another worker, locating near one person's job may mean a long commute for another. Busy rural roads Interestingly, the growth in rural commuting seems just as strong as metro-area travel. For example, seven of the 17 musical-chair counties don't fall within a metropolitan area. And in five of those, most of the jobs for which w
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
On Sun, 4 May 2003 03:00, you wrote: > One problem ( that I don't know what the rate is elseware ) that we have in > the western US, due to allot of the long miles between stopping points, is > a fairly high rate of auto accidents due to Highway Hypnosis, and drivers > falling asleep behind the wheel. One particular incident we had last > summer, was the death of 9 forest firefighters because the driver of the > van they were in, fell asleep. Things like this can not be attributed to > vehicle design, but, directly to drivers, and the people in charge of the > drivers ( the driver is given X amount of time to get from one place to > another and if they don't make it on time they are penalized ). > > Greg H. You guys always have to have something bigger! We have real distances between petrol stops in the Northern Territory: 220Km (about 140miles) between petrol stations (and any habitation) & this is on a major highway between Adelaide & Darwin. Often at night, when I go to Sydney, I have 100Km between petrol stations (but I can go 725Km to Sydney on less than a tank anyway - so who cares!) The only stops I make are for a meal, or toilet. But after all of that I agree that micro-sleeps are a killer. (& there has been research done n Australia). There are restrictions on how far a truck (& heavy vehicles) can travel between rest stops. The Transport dept has checkpoints to check these rests too. (big fines for non-compliance) regards Doug Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
One problem ( that I don't know what the rate is elseware ) that we have in the western US, due to allot of the long miles between stopping points, is a fairly high rate of auto accidents due to Highway Hypnosis, and drivers falling asleep behind the wheel. One particular incident we had last summer, was the death of 9 forest firefighters because the driver of the van they were in, fell asleep. Things like this can not be attributed to vehicle design, but, directly to drivers, and the people in charge of the drivers ( the driver is given X amount of time to get from one place to another and if they don't make it on time they are penalized ). Greg H. - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 14:59 Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > At 10:23 AM 5/1/2003 +1000, you wrote: > >On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:50 am, Hakan Falk wrote: > > > Dear John, > > > > > > I think we can discuss which type of statistics that is > > > the right one and the truth is that it is no single one that > > > give a complete picture. > > > >Do we all agree that it is too high a figure? > > Yes, > > US42,800+ > Australia 1,700+ > Sweden 900+ > > They are all too high. We must improve, > > Driver skills, > Discipline concerning rules, > Vehicle safety and > Environment, > > to get them down. Compliance is very dangerous. > > Hakan > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles. No Late Fees & Free Shipping. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
At 10:23 AM 5/1/2003 +1000, you wrote: >On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:50 am, Hakan Falk wrote: > > Dear John, > > > > I think we can discuss which type of statistics that is > > the right one and the truth is that it is no single one that > > give a complete picture. > >Do we all agree that it is too high a figure? Yes, US42,800+ Australia 1,700+ Sweden 900+ They are all too high. We must improve, Driver skills, Discipline concerning rules, Vehicle safety and Environment, to get them down. Compliance is very dangerous. Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Hakan Falk wrote: >The training, tests and exams are more extensive. Skidding training >are mandatory and certificate is necessary for drivers licence. > Yes, US driver training is utterly horrible. And driver discipline is worse. >Germany have much better statistics than US, that is a fact. > > > >US is among the leaders on accidents and fatalities what ever way you look at >the numbers. > Actually, no. When looked at as traffic deaths per distance travelled , which is the proper statistic in my opinion given that time on the road as a function of distance travelled is far more meaningful in assessing true risk as compared to deaths per population or per vehicle registered, the US is actually one of the 5 safest countries. In fact. just to name a few, the US is safer than Germany, Switzerland or France. Of course, Sweden is #2 on the list, behind Great Britain. My source is the International Road Traffic and Accident Database located at http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/utility/p73.pdf. My point isn't to be a US cheerleader but just to point out that your perceptions are not backed by the facts. The question then becomes how then is the US a relatatively safe to drive when the driver training and driver discipline is so incredibly bad? I'd suggest reason is a philosophical difference between the US and Europe with regard to risks and hazards. To make some sweeping generalizations, Europeans look to avoid accidents whereas Americans tend to look to survive accidents. Typically, this results in a different engineering approach. Plenty of good examples pop into my mind without thinking about it very hard. As was already mentioned, this can been seen in the amount of steering bias seen in European v. American cars; European cars tend toward neutral steering or oversteer while cars built in Detroit have lots of understeer. (Old racing joke: What's the difference between understeer and oversteer? With understeer the front end of the car hits the wall first, with oversteer, the back end hits first.). I think most American's would rather drive a big Dodge SUV that *seems* like it will survive a crash better than a smaller more manuverable BMW that will avoid the crash entirely. I also think you can see this difference in engineering approachs when comparing CART vs. Formula One tracks; the massive runoffs and gravel traps found on a CART circuit are nowhere to be found on an F1 track. I wonder if this is reflected in professional traffic engineering as well? The exception of the autobahn aside, aren't US interstates massively over engineered, by virtue of available space, when compared to the highways in other developed countries? A couple of years ago, a visiting scholar from Australia was in my lab for the summer. During the summer, he drove to Chicago and back from the East Coast; I distinctly remember him marvelling about how US interstates were unlike anything they had in Australia. My final example in differential engineering approachs relates to trains; it is my understanding that the US cannot buy proven off-the-shelf high speed trains from Europe because the US regulations require an ungodly high crush strength. Supposedly, this in turn makes the cars heavier and thus less prone to stop. The US regulations would rather make the train car survive an impact with a cement truck, regardless of the passengers inside the car, than make a lighter train that can stop short of the cement mixer. Rather stupid in my estimation, but they didn't ask me. Anywho, I need some lunch. John Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
(Fwd) Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Accidently sent this to Vern directly. --- Forwarded message follows --- From: Andrew Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 Date sent: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:32:20 +1000 On 26 Apr 2003 at 11:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > Your point is well made an the USA could do a better job but I think > you will find that a big part of the reason for the difference in > the two statistics is the difference in percentage of rural and > urban driving between the two countries where you have many more > people (a greater percentage) living in the rural areas where if > they do Slight correction here, contrary to what the "image" of Australia may be in the rest of the world, wide open spaces, kids ride kangaroo's to school etc etc, Australia is in fact the most highly, if memory serves me correctly and if it doesn't it's very near the top, urbanised country in the OECD. Well over 80% of our population is in a strip that extends about 100km inland from the eastern coast running from just abouve Brisbane, right around to Adelaide. > something stupid they are a one car accident and in the USA because > a much greater percentage of our driving is in urban areas when one > of ours does something stupid he hits someone else to increase the > probability of more deaths. The amount of cars per capita also plays > a roll here and I would guess that we have more cars per person than > you may. I think you are wrong on this one as well. Drive around, or if you are environmentally consious ride, around some of the newer suburbs in any of the larger cities and you will find at least two cars in the driveway. It is quite common for kids upon turning eighteen to purchase cars. In fact a quick "google" returned the fact that Australia's car ownership is 627 cars/1000 people whilst the USA, I could only find 1993 figures so add a few to this figure, was 561 cars/1000 people so I think you will see that car ownerships rates are quite similar. Living in Melbourne and having driven in all of the major capital cities in Australia and also having driven in California, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, I can tell you that there is no real difference in the "intensity" of the traffic, it is just that in LA, it being much bigger, the "intensity" lasts longer. > > Yes we should do better but I do not think they are all that > comparable. I actually think that they are quite comparable ;) > > Have a good day. > > Best regards, > Vern 'til lata, Andrew --- End of forwarded message --- Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
All, I don't know the per capita statistics, but we have a disgusting ratio in South Africa -- in our case a huge number of deaths are either pedestrian or passenger which are not shown up by the statistics and which are unaffected by all the deep reflection on what will make the automobile safer --- I know that it is reputed that American's don't walk, but is there another statistic crooking the books ? - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 Andrew, You have a large number of countries that have the same ratios or some even better than Australia, The Netherlands Germany Switzerland Norway Finland Denmark Sweden UK etc. I always wondered why US, with corresponding speed limits, have such a high fatality rate. It is not my experiences from the US, that they need computers to think for them. I do agree with you on seat belts and helmets, but it is some other things also. I belive the traffic rules are also to blame and especially the overtaking rules, that are not enforced at all. The mix of vehicles with the popular SUVs, could also assist. It is clear evidence that fatalities has dramatically gone down for normal autos, but up for accidents with SUVs involved. Hakan At 10:34 AM 4/26/2003 +1000, you wrote: >On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=DE0 > > D502D-4FB5-4B39-B52E-ECA47FC0CF9B > > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia >with the USA. > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > >1 death per 6546 in the USA > Vs >1 death per 11304 in Australia > >This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in >the US as you are in Australia. Why is this so? The answer can >plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia >has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random >breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. > > I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it >"violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that >enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using >the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people >killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > > To take it a step further, there is a large financial cost >associated with a person dying in a vehicle crash, but there is a >much larger cost associated with those people who survive the crash >but suffer some form if incapacitation, or even a long rehabilitation >period. If a person is permanently injured in a car crash and in turn >needs life long care, then the costs are huge. I would guess that it >would cost at least $50,000 per year to look after said injured person >and if they happen to live for 40 years in this state, that's $2M >straight away. Also it is worth remembering that for every death on >the roads, there are a lot of accidents which are severe, resulting is >no deaths but long term injury. > > So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on >the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending >down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. >Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to >introd
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Nah...Nah...NahNahNah. You postured it. So I asked: What are the rights "as you see them" - not a statutory listing and constitutional law from a law library. Any idgit can look this stuff up and couch it before any crowd of legal or common mind. If the law already exists, then in theory the world is living by applied law. If they are not, then there are flaws, either in the law or its application. Hence, again, the question, "what are the rights of US and world citizens as You see them?" Apparently you don't believe that paper matches reality in perhaps all too many instances? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > - Original Message - > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 19:05 > Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > > > Ahlrighty then, > > > > Just for conversational purposes, what might be the rights of US > individuals > > and internationals as you see them? > > > > Might as well start creating common ground. > > > > > Start with: > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html ( Below ) > > The form of goverment is listed in Artical IV, section 4 > > Then follow up with : > > U.S. Constitution: First Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Third Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment03/ > > U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment05/ > > U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment06/ > > U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment07/ > > U.S. Constitution: Eighth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment08/ > > U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment09/ > > U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Eleventh Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment11/ > > U.S. Constitution: Twelfth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment12/ > > U.S. Constitution: Thirteenth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/ > > U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/ > > U.S. Constitution: Fifteenth Amendment > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment15/ > > U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Eighteenth Amendment ( Repealed ) > http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment18/ > > U.S. Constitution: Nineteenth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment19/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twentieth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-First Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment21/ > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Second Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Third Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment23/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fourth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fifth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment25/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Sixth Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment26/index.html > > U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Seventh Amendment > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment27/index.html > > Have fun. > > Greg H. > > > U.S. Constitution > > -- -- > > > > The Constitution of the United States of America > > > ---
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:52 pm, murdoch wrote: > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=DE0D502D >-4FB5-4B39-B52E-ECA47FC0CF9B this is astounding... I knew it was bad in the US but not that bad... in Oz we have around 700 deaths per year over 18 million. the US has 48,000 out of 200 million, or about 6 times the death rate (and I guess the injuries rate is similarly higher.) the main differences between the two? compulsory seatbelts, random breathtesting, standard national laws (0.05% blood alcohol), 0% blood alcohol for the first 2 years of driving (2 years probation, driving age is 18). loose a little freedom (not for security, but civic duty), gain a whole lotta saved lives the guy instrumental in getting random breathtesting in australia died recently... His Obit suggested he is responsible for saving 30,000 lives over the last 3 decades... Our death rate is lower than in the 1950's... -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
- Original Message - From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 19:05 Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > Ahlrighty then, > > Just for conversational purposes, what might be the rights of US individuals > and internationals as you see them? > > Might as well start creating common ground. > Start with: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html ( Below ) The form of goverment is listed in Artical IV, section 4 Then follow up with : U.S. Constitution: First Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/index.html U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/index.html U.S. Constitution: Third Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment03/ U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/index.html U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment05/ U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment06/ U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment07/ U.S. Constitution: Eighth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment08/ U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment09/ U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/index.html U.S. Constitution: Eleventh Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment11/ U.S. Constitution: Twelfth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment12/ U.S. Constitution: Thirteenth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/ U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/ U.S. Constitution: Fifteenth Amendment http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment15/ U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/index.html U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/index.html U.S. Constitution: Eighteenth Amendment ( Repealed ) http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment18/ U.S. Constitution: Nineteenth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment19/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twentieth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ U.S. Constitution: Twenty-First Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment21/ U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Second Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Third Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment23/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fourth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fifth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment25/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Sixth Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment26/index.html U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Seventh Amendment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment27/index.html Have fun. Greg H. U.S. Constitution The Constitution of the United States of America [Preamble Annotations ] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article. I. [ Annotations ] Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
What is average in US. I have done very high average almost all my life, it is around 60-70,000 km/year. When I was young and financed my studies by driving Taxi and then because my work Internationally. But the average for Swedish drivers is 20-25,000 km per year, I have a vague memory of that it is more or less in parity with US average. Hakan At 07:50 PM 4/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I tend to put on 25k miles / year. > >Steve Spence >Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter >& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: >http://www.green-trust.org >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >- Original Message - >From: "Alan Petrillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 6:39 PM >Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > To compare driving fatalities of the USA with other countries on a per >capita > > > basis is worthless. There needs to be consideration of the higher >miles/person > > > driven in a year. > > > > This is true. It wouldn't surprize me in the least to find out that > > Americans drive more miles/person/year than anywhere else on Earth. > > > > > To hop in a car and drive for eight hours to visit someone would > > > be unheard of in most other countries, but is fairly common in the USA. > > > > There are a number of reasons for this. The first is the absence of any > > real intercity mass transit except for airlines. Our long distance > > passenger rail system, except for a very few areas, was very effectively > > killed off in the last half of the 20th century. Long distance Busses > > do exist, but in most places they're considered strictly low class, and > > relegated to carying people who can't afford to go by airline. And then > > there are the airlines. Since Deregulation, note the capital "D", there > > are a lot of smaller communities that airlines just don't serve anymore. > > In any event, with all of the security procedures one must go through > > in order to fly in the post-9/11 world, it may actually be faster to > > drive than to fly, depending on the distance involved. And even if one > > does fly, if you're going to an area that is not served by a good > > mass-transit system, there's the problem of "How am I going to get > > around once I'm there?" > > > > > The > > > twelve lanes of traffic on the NJ TP into and out of NYC is not seen in >many > > > other countries. The beltway of Washington, D.C., is at least five lanes >in > > > each direction. And, so on. The speeds traveled on these roads is around >75 > > > mph regardless of posted speeds. So...you have a lot of congestion plus >high > > > speeds. > > > > Have you ever seen the Autobahn around Frankfurt or Munich? > > > > > Seatbelt laws and helmet laws have been in place in the USA for years >with the > > > exception of a few states. They could be more strongly enforced, but >they are > > > there. > > > > Indeed. But while they do exist, they are under constant attack from > > various groups. There are some who claim that wearing a helmet on a > > motorcycle is actually unsafe because it "restricts your vision". What > > a load. If it restricts your vision then you need to buy a better helmet. > > > > > The bigger problem than seatbelts and helmets is alcohol and other >drugs. A > > > very high percentage of single vehicle accidents involves someone under >the > > > influence. A high percentage of all accidents involves at least one of >the > > > drivers being under the influence. > > > > Around half, IIRC. > > > > > There are continuous attempts to curb this, > > > with varying degrees of success. > > > > Indeed. Every time we turn around somebody is screaming "There ought to > > be a law!" And our politicians, being politicians, have to appear to be > > doing something, so they happily go out and make some damned law, until > > we're now bound around with them. > > > > > Part of the problem is again the structure of > > > our communities. For example, in many areas in Europe one can go out >with > > > buddies and walk about to a multitude of bars/discos, etc., and not need >to > > > get about except by walking or using mass-transit. > > > > I remember when I was living in Ansbach, Germany, there was this little > > Irish pub around the corner from the Hauptbahnhof in Nurnberg, and my >
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
I tend to put on 25k miles / year. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Alan Petrillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > To compare driving fatalities of the USA with other countries on a per capita > > basis is worthless. There needs to be consideration of the higher miles/person > > driven in a year. > > This is true. It wouldn't surprize me in the least to find out that > Americans drive more miles/person/year than anywhere else on Earth. > > > To hop in a car and drive for eight hours to visit someone would > > be unheard of in most other countries, but is fairly common in the USA. > > There are a number of reasons for this. The first is the absence of any > real intercity mass transit except for airlines. Our long distance > passenger rail system, except for a very few areas, was very effectively > killed off in the last half of the 20th century. Long distance Busses > do exist, but in most places they're considered strictly low class, and > relegated to carying people who can't afford to go by airline. And then > there are the airlines. Since Deregulation, note the capital "D", there > are a lot of smaller communities that airlines just don't serve anymore. > In any event, with all of the security procedures one must go through > in order to fly in the post-9/11 world, it may actually be faster to > drive than to fly, depending on the distance involved. And even if one > does fly, if you're going to an area that is not served by a good > mass-transit system, there's the problem of "How am I going to get > around once I'm there?" > > > The > > twelve lanes of traffic on the NJ TP into and out of NYC is not seen in many > > other countries. The beltway of Washington, D.C., is at least five lanes in > > each direction. And, so on. The speeds traveled on these roads is around 75 > > mph regardless of posted speeds. So...you have a lot of congestion plus high > > speeds. > > Have you ever seen the Autobahn around Frankfurt or Munich? > > > Seatbelt laws and helmet laws have been in place in the USA for years with the > > exception of a few states. They could be more strongly enforced, but they are > > there. > > Indeed. But while they do exist, they are under constant attack from > various groups. There are some who claim that wearing a helmet on a > motorcycle is actually unsafe because it "restricts your vision". What > a load. If it restricts your vision then you need to buy a better helmet. > > > The bigger problem than seatbelts and helmets is alcohol and other drugs. A > > very high percentage of single vehicle accidents involves someone under the > > influence. A high percentage of all accidents involves at least one of the > > drivers being under the influence. > > Around half, IIRC. > > > There are continuous attempts to curb this, > > with varying degrees of success. > > Indeed. Every time we turn around somebody is screaming "There ought to > be a law!" And our politicians, being politicians, have to appear to be > doing something, so they happily go out and make some damned law, until > we're now bound around with them. > > > Part of the problem is again the structure of > > our communities. For example, in many areas in Europe one can go out with > > buddies and walk about to a multitude of bars/discos, etc., and not need to > > get about except by walking or using mass-transit. > > I remember when I was living in Ansbach, Germany, there was this little > Irish pub around the corner from the Hauptbahnhof in Nurnberg, and my > apartment was stumbling distance from the Bahnhof in Ansbach. At that > time the rail system was running a DM15 weekend special for up to 5 > people, so I made that trip a lot on the weekends. > > > In the States, in many > > areas it is very difficult to do anything without driving. So...there are > > attempts to get people to designate a driver who remains sober while everyone > > else has a party. This tends not to be very successful. > > That depends entirely on the responsibility of the one designated as the > driver. Many areas also have "toxicabs" which will drive people home at > no charge when they've gotten too drunk to drive themselves. > > > Finally, there is a trade off between well engineered roads and possible > > traffic spee
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To compare driving fatalities of the USA with other countries on a per capita > basis is worthless. There needs to be consideration of the higher > miles/person > driven in a year. This is true. It wouldn't surprize me in the least to find out that Americans drive more miles/person/year than anywhere else on Earth. > To hop in a car and drive for eight hours to visit someone would > be unheard of in most other countries, but is fairly common in the USA. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is the absence of any real intercity mass transit except for airlines. Our long distance passenger rail system, except for a very few areas, was very effectively killed off in the last half of the 20th century. Long distance Busses do exist, but in most places they're considered strictly low class, and relegated to carying people who can't afford to go by airline. And then there are the airlines. Since Deregulation, note the capital "D", there are a lot of smaller communities that airlines just don't serve anymore. In any event, with all of the security procedures one must go through in order to fly in the post-9/11 world, it may actually be faster to drive than to fly, depending on the distance involved. And even if one does fly, if you're going to an area that is not served by a good mass-transit system, there's the problem of "How am I going to get around once I'm there?" > The > twelve lanes of traffic on the NJ TP into and out of NYC is not seen in many > other countries. The beltway of Washington, D.C., is at least five lanes in > each direction. And, so on. The speeds traveled on these roads is around 75 > mph regardless of posted speeds. So...you have a lot of congestion plus high > speeds. Have you ever seen the Autobahn around Frankfurt or Munich? > Seatbelt laws and helmet laws have been in place in the USA for years with > the > exception of a few states. They could be more strongly enforced, but they are > there. Indeed. But while they do exist, they are under constant attack from various groups. There are some who claim that wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is actually unsafe because it "restricts your vision". What a load. If it restricts your vision then you need to buy a better helmet. > The bigger problem than seatbelts and helmets is alcohol and other drugs. A > very high percentage of single vehicle accidents involves someone under the > influence. A high percentage of all accidents involves at least one of the > drivers being under the influence. Around half, IIRC. > There are continuous attempts to curb this, > with varying degrees of success. Indeed. Every time we turn around somebody is screaming "There ought to be a law!" And our politicians, being politicians, have to appear to be doing something, so they happily go out and make some damned law, until we're now bound around with them. > Part of the problem is again the structure of > our communities. For example, in many areas in Europe one can go out with > buddies and walk about to a multitude of bars/discos, etc., and not need to > get about except by walking or using mass-transit. I remember when I was living in Ansbach, Germany, there was this little Irish pub around the corner from the Hauptbahnhof in Nurnberg, and my apartment was stumbling distance from the Bahnhof in Ansbach. At that time the rail system was running a DM15 weekend special for up to 5 people, so I made that trip a lot on the weekends. > In the States, in many > areas it is very difficult to do anything without driving. So...there are > attempts to get people to designate a driver who remains sober while everyone > else has a party. This tends not to be very successful. That depends entirely on the responsibility of the one designated as the driver. Many areas also have "toxicabs" which will drive people home at no charge when they've gotten too drunk to drive themselves. > Finally, there is a trade off between well engineered roads and possible > traffic speeds. And...speed kills in more ways than one. Um... Well, yes, but. It isn't the speed that kills. It's the sudden stop. > In Saudi Arabia, I read > that it had or has the highest per capita fatality rate. Well...fairly good > roads and people driving at 100 mph all the time. If one loses a tire at 100 > mph/161 kph, there is a good chance it will be the last time. The answer here is "it depends". Mostly it depends on the skill of the driver in controlling the situation. If the driver freaks out then the results are going to be bad. It also depends on the safety equipment in the car. If drivers don't cheap out on the safety equipment then even horrific crashes are survivable, many times without too much injury. But if the safety equipment is neglected, or the maintenance of it is neglected, then the results will be similarly bad. I've lost a tire at high speed on the hi
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Dear Derek, Such info is not available and it is therefore I am saying that for the top 20 industrial countries, the population per accident is probably the best. If you go beyond the top 20, the information is definitely not correct. So we are back to agree that Andrew's assumption when comparing US and Australia is quite valid. Hakan At 07:16 PM 4/27/2003 +, you wrote: >Dear Hakan, > >For the US, accidents per vehicle would not be valid, since many drivers own >and operate two, three, or more vehicles. When I used to live and work in the >US, I put around 30,000 miles/year on three vehicles. Wouldn't my risk of an >accident, as a driver, have to based on my 30,000 miles/year of driving, not >on a per vehicle basis? I think the more valid measure for comparison between >countries would be the accidents/total miles driven by all drivers/year. > >Derek Hargis > > > > Martin, > > > > You are very right, the most common professional way to compare is > > accidents per vehicles and/or distance driven. For those countries that > > we have been talking about, it does not make a very large difference. > > It would be very skewed if we started to include countries like India > > or China, who would have very low death per population. > > > > I think that Kim touched very valid points, education, experience and > > attitudes. It is also what the people who works with the issues are > > saying. The European countries have 18 years old as limit for car > > driving licence, 16 years for light motor bike and 15 years for moped. > > The training, tests and exams are more extensive. Skidding training > > are mandatory and certificate is necessary for drivers licence. > > > > Germany have much better statistics than US, that is a fact. I can > > understand your sister, you must be very disciplined to drive on > > German autobahn. Having higher normal speeds, with many who > > drives at 100-130 miles per hour is scary, but they are more predictable > > and follow the rules. I am more afraid on US highways, since the US > > drivers are less predictable and less respect for rules. > > > > US is among the leaders on accidents and fatalities what ever way > > you look at the numbers. US is also leader on murder rates, largely > > because of the gun laws. This is part of the constitutional rights, > freedom, > > corporate interests and the right to do business. If you change it, you > > will end up with a suppressed society, like all other countries in the > > world. I do not understand why the terrorists want to kill a few people, > > when the Americans are so good in doing it themselves. Look only > > at president Bush and the watering down of taken pollution decisions, > > it will prematurely kill more people than many of the bad guys in other > > countries have done. This is a well researched fact. > > > > With all the people that are prepared to twist and hide realities, after > > all it is all a conspiracy to "bash the Americans", it is hard to defend > > common sense. Intelligence and common sense is the arch enemies > > of corporate America and the "American way of life". I am not on a > > crusade for saving American lives, only to beg them to save some > > energy resources for developing the rest of the world. > > > > Hakan > > > > At 01:50 AM 4/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > >I hear about massive accidents on the German autobahn all the time. I > > >remember my sister telling me how she was so scared because everyone > > >drove extremely fast. > > >You can't just compare x deaths out of n people. Like any statistic it > > >depends on everything else remotely related to it. > > > > > >Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting > > > >highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. > > > > > > > >Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly > > > >1/9 of US. > > > > > > > >Hakan > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Dear Hakan, For the US, accidents per vehicle would not be valid, since many drivers own and operate two, three, or more vehicles. When I used to live and work in the US, I put around 30,000 miles/year on three vehicles. Wouldn't my risk of an accident, as a driver, have to based on my 30,000 miles/year of driving, not on a per vehicle basis? I think the more valid measure for comparison between countries would be the accidents/total miles driven by all drivers/year. Derek Hargis > > Martin, > > You are very right, the most common professional way to compare is > accidents per vehicles and/or distance driven. For those countries that > we have been talking about, it does not make a very large difference. > It would be very skewed if we started to include countries like India > or China, who would have very low death per population. > > I think that Kim touched very valid points, education, experience and > attitudes. It is also what the people who works with the issues are > saying. The European countries have 18 years old as limit for car > driving licence, 16 years for light motor bike and 15 years for moped. > The training, tests and exams are more extensive. Skidding training > are mandatory and certificate is necessary for drivers licence. > > Germany have much better statistics than US, that is a fact. I can > understand your sister, you must be very disciplined to drive on > German autobahn. Having higher normal speeds, with many who > drives at 100-130 miles per hour is scary, but they are more predictable > and follow the rules. I am more afraid on US highways, since the US > drivers are less predictable and less respect for rules. > > US is among the leaders on accidents and fatalities what ever way > you look at the numbers. US is also leader on murder rates, largely > because of the gun laws. This is part of the constitutional rights, freedom, > corporate interests and the right to do business. If you change it, you > will end up with a suppressed society, like all other countries in the > world. I do not understand why the terrorists want to kill a few people, > when the Americans are so good in doing it themselves. Look only > at president Bush and the watering down of taken pollution decisions, > it will prematurely kill more people than many of the bad guys in other > countries have done. This is a well researched fact. > > With all the people that are prepared to twist and hide realities, after > all it is all a conspiracy to "bash the Americans", it is hard to defend > common sense. Intelligence and common sense is the arch enemies > of corporate America and the "American way of life". I am not on a > crusade for saving American lives, only to beg them to save some > energy resources for developing the rest of the world. > > Hakan > > At 01:50 AM 4/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >I hear about massive accidents on the German autobahn all the time. I > >remember my sister telling me how she was so scared because everyone > >drove extremely fast. > >You can't just compare x deaths out of n people. Like any statistic it > >depends on everything else remotely related to it. > > > >Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > > > > >Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting > > >highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. > > > > > >Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly > > >1/9 of US. > > > > > >Hakan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >--- > >Martin Klingensmith > >http://nnytech.net/ > >http://infoarchive.net/ > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Martin, You are very right, the most common professional way to compare is accidents per vehicles and/or distance driven. For those countries that we have been talking about, it does not make a very large difference. It would be very skewed if we started to include countries like India or China, who would have very low death per population. I think that Kim touched very valid points, education, experience and attitudes. It is also what the people who works with the issues are saying. The European countries have 18 years old as limit for car driving licence, 16 years for light motor bike and 15 years for moped. The training, tests and exams are more extensive. Skidding training are mandatory and certificate is necessary for drivers licence. Germany have much better statistics than US, that is a fact. I can understand your sister, you must be very disciplined to drive on German autobahn. Having higher normal speeds, with many who drives at 100-130 miles per hour is scary, but they are more predictable and follow the rules. I am more afraid on US highways, since the US drivers are less predictable and less respect for rules. US is among the leaders on accidents and fatalities what ever way you look at the numbers. US is also leader on murder rates, largely because of the gun laws. This is part of the constitutional rights, freedom, corporate interests and the right to do business. If you change it, you will end up with a suppressed society, like all other countries in the world. I do not understand why the terrorists want to kill a few people, when the Americans are so good in doing it themselves. Look only at president Bush and the watering down of taken pollution decisions, it will prematurely kill more people than many of the bad guys in other countries have done. This is a well researched fact. With all the people that are prepared to twist and hide realities, after all it is all a conspiracy to "bash the Americans", it is hard to defend common sense. Intelligence and common sense is the arch enemies of corporate America and the "American way of life". I am not on a crusade for saving American lives, only to beg them to save some energy resources for developing the rest of the world. Hakan At 01:50 AM 4/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I hear about massive accidents on the German autobahn all the time. I >remember my sister telling me how she was so scared because everyone >drove extremely fast. >You can't just compare x deaths out of n people. Like any statistic it >depends on everything else remotely related to it. > >Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > >Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting > >highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. > > > >Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly > >1/9 of US. > > > >Hakan > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >--- >Martin Klingensmith >http://nnytech.net/ >http://infoarchive.net/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
I hear about massive accidents on the German autobahn all the time. I remember my sister telling me how she was so scared because everyone drove extremely fast. You can't just compare x deaths out of n people. Like any statistic it depends on everything else remotely related to it. Hakan Falk wrote: > >Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting >highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. > >Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly >1/9 of US. > >Hakan > > > > > -- --- Martin Klingensmith http://nnytech.net/ http://infoarchive.net/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
To compare driving fatalities of the USA with other countries on a per capita basis is worthless. There needs to be consideration of the higher miles/person driven in a year. People do everything by car in the US, from shopping, working, commuting, entertainment, to the Sunday drive for no good reason other than to go for a drive. This is just not seen in any other country in my experience. To hop in a car and drive for eight hours to visit someone would be unheard of in most other countries, but is fairly common in the USA. The twelve lanes of traffic on the NJ TP into and out of NYC is not seen in many other countries. The beltway of Washington, D.C., is at least five lanes in each direction. And, so on. The speeds traveled on these roads is around 75 mph regardless of posted speeds. So...you have a lot of congestion plus high speeds. Seatbelt laws and helmet laws have been in place in the USA for years with the exception of a few states. They could be more strongly enforced, but they are there. The bigger problem than seatbelts and helmets is alcohol and other drugs. A very high percentage of single vehicle accidents involves someone under the influence. A high percentage of all accidents involves at least one of the drivers being under the influence. There are continuous attempts to curb this, with varying degrees of success. Part of the problem is again the structure of our communities. For example, in many areas in Europe one can go out with buddies and walk about to a multitude of bars/discos, etc., and not need to get about except by walking or using mass-transit. In the States, in many areas it is very difficult to do anything without driving. So...there are attempts to get people to designate a driver who remains sober while everyone else has a party. This tends not to be very successful. But, in other countries, in Europe for example, it often doesn't even become an issue. Finally, there is a trade off between well engineered roads and possible traffic speeds. And...speed kills in more ways than one. When I lived in Beijing the driving was absolutely the worst I have ever seen. But, the fatalities were very low because no one could manage to drive faster than about 20 mph because of the congestion. The same when I was in Cairo. Everything was so bumper to bumper that although there were small accidents all the time, very few fatalities. When I was in India a drive of only 110 kilometers took me five hours because of the state of the road. Again, much more difficult to go fast enough to have a fatality. In Saudi Arabia, I read that it had or has the highest per capita fatality rate. Well...fairly good roads and people driving at 100 mph all the time. If one loses a tire at 100 mph/161 kph, there is a good chance it will be the last time. Another thing is a higher number of accidents by either very young drivers or very old drivers. Many states in the USA allow driving at 16 and with minimum instruction. From my experience in Spain, which I assume pertains to much of the rest of Europe, where my daughter is coming up on eighteen, the minimum age is 18, and she has to take formal instruction in a driving school and pass a fairly rigorous written examination and driving test. To my knowledge, no state in the USA requires driving school. One can learn any old way and take the test. The tests in the USA tend to be very simple compared to what I have seen in Spain. Also, in Spain, older drivers have to retest and demonstrate that they have not become too impaired by health reasons to drive safely. So, the stats need to be adjusted for miles driven/year/person. There needs to be consideration for the condition of the roads, and speeds at which drivers drive. There needs to be changes in the way people relax with meaningful alternatives so people won't tend to drive under the influence - for example, greater availability of mass transit, more taxi and limousine services. There needs to be better driver's education and consideration to raising the minimum driving age. It is a multi-factorial problem. Regardless of comparisons with other countries, much can still be done to cut this death rate in all countries. Derek Hargis > On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/inde
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
> Repeat after me... > > Lupo. LupoLupo Lupo Lupo LupoLupo LupoLupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo. > Lupo. LupoLupo Lupo Lupo LupoLupo LupoLupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo. > Lupo. LupoLupo Lupo Lupo LupoLupo LupoLupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo Lupo. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Repeat after me... Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. Lupo. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > >Andrew, > > > >You have a large number of countries that have the same > >ratios or some even better than Australia, > > > >The Netherlands > >Germany > >Switzerland > >Norway > >Finland > >Denmark > >Sweden > >UK > >etc. > > > >I always wondered why US, with corresponding speed limits, > >have such a high fatality rate. It is not my experiences from > >the US, that they need computers to think for them. I do agree > >with you on seat belts and helmets, but it is some other things > >also. I belive the traffic rules are also to blame and especially > >the overtaking rules, that are not enforced at all. The mix of > >vehicles with the popular SUVs, could also assist. It is clear > >evidence that fatalities has dramatically gone down for normal > >autos, but up for accidents with SUVs involved. > > > >Hakan > > Even apart from SUVs, the average size of US cars is probably bigger > than anywhere else, and their accident rates higher than countries > with much smaller average car sizes, and yet there's this ridiculous > idea in the US that small cars are dangerous. It comes as not much of > a surprise that it mostly stems from industry-funded right-wing > "think-tanks" such as the odious Competitive Enterprise Institute, > with whose Sam Kazman Hakan took issue a couple of months back over > his preposterous claims about SUVs. > > Much of the resistance to improved fuel economy standards was based > on the idea (?) that more fuel-efficient cars would necessarily be > smaller, leading to thousands of extra traffic deaths - *these > environmentalist whackos are out to kill us all!!!* > > Yeah, right. Or maybe it's just that certain powerful interests don't > want Americans to use less fuel... > > I thought at first the whole idea might be because US cars are > generally big and the little guys would stand less chance in a > collision with a bigger car, and that seems to be the case when the > big ones are SUVs. But: "Fact: In 1997, latest-available government > data, 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars: 46% from > single-car crashes, 10% from small cars running into each other. Just > 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and > large SUVs -- 136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths that year." > > 46% from single-car crashes - these small cars just up and crash on > you all of sudden without warning, they go mad and hit a tree or > something. Nothing to do with collisions with heavies - they're > INHERENTLY more dangerous. And indeed, that's what's claimed. > > Funny, if there were any basis to it at all you'd think the Europeans > and the Japanese might have noticed it by now. Japanese cars (the > ones they don't export) are getting smaller and smaller. I keep > meaning to check it out and haven't yet, but I very much doubt their > accident rates are getting higher and higher accordingly. There are > plenty of high-speed roads here, lots of fast traffic, and lots of > heavy vehicles amidst it all. > > More BS, is all. > > Here are some links to this stuff (previously posted): > > http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/43802/article.html > Fuel-Efficient Vehicles: Your Money or Your Life > > http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/cafeusatoday.html > Death by the gallon -- CAFE Fuel Efficiency Standards > > http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,02353.cfm > CEI.ORG: Competitive Enterprise Institute: Flip-Flopping On Small Car Safety > > Best > > Keith > > > > > >At 10:34 AM 4/26/2003 +1000, you wrote: > > >On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > > > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > > > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > > > > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > > > > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > > > > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > &
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Ahlrighty then, Just for conversational purposes, what might be the rights of US individuals and internationals as you see them? Might as well start creating common ground. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > I would go so far as to say that most Americans have not the foggiest idea, > of what the constitution is about let alone what it means for them. Add > into it, the fact that many politicians have given people the wrong idea > about what their rights are, in order to stay in office, and you have the > makings for the bad stew of delusion. > > Greg H > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 18:34 > Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > > > > > I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it > > "violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that > > enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using > > the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people > > killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Curiosity gives cause to the question, How may ways are there of looking at "dead?" Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "murdoch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > Andrew: > > I am replying to this second-hand because of a messup with my email > program. > > >>1 death per 6546 in the USA > >> Vs > >>1 death per 11304 in Australia > >> > >>This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in > >>the US as you are in Australia. > > By one way of looking at things. Other ways are to look at the type > of driving, or deaths per person-mile traveled, etc. > > >Why is this so? The answer can > >>plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia > >>has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random > >>breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. > > So far as I'm aware the U.S. states generally have compulsory > seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and various testing programs for > alcohol including, for example, check-points set up during high-death > holiday times. These have been in place for quite some time now. > Compulsory seat-belt laws came into play when I was a kid, 20 or 30 > years ago. There may of course be difference in the laws, but I think > you've got a somewhat different view of the laws here. > > >> I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it > >>"violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that > >>enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using > >>the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people > >>killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > > I agree with the view that some Americans have sometimed had a > somewhat warped view of their freedoms as they apply to driving > enforcement laws. For example, I do not think anyone has the right to > drive drunk, that it's a stunning act of bad faith and disrespect for > one's fellow man, and that it has become clear that the police are > within their rights to watch out for drunk drivers, including > check-points, given the shocking number who still do. > > > > >> To take it a step further, there is a large financial cost > >>associated with a person dying in a vehicle crash, but there is a > >>much larger cost associated with those people who survive the crash > >>but suffer some form if incapacitation, or even a long rehabilitation > >>period. If a person is permanently injured in a car crash and in turn > >>needs life long care, then the costs are huge. I would guess that it > >>would cost at least $50,000 per year to look after said injured person > >>and if they happen to live for 40 years in this state, that's $2M > >>straight away. Also it is worth remembering that for every death on > >>the roads, there are a lot of accidents which are severe, resulting is > >>no deaths but long term injury. > > Interesting points. One of the reasons I posted the article. I think > these matters are swept under the rug by our system of sort of not > discussing the negative aspects of driving. > > > >> So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on > >>the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending > >>down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. > >>Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to > >>introduce measures and stopped both the carnage and cost instead > >>of waiting for "Robby the Robot" to drive them around ? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Andrew > > The U.S. has taken most of the measures you suggest, if I'm not > mistaken. Also, you have misrepresented and even perhaps grossly > misrepresented my call for greater vehicle safety. > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Martin, I made a mistake, Denmark have the lowest accident rate per square mile, forgot that Greenland is a part of Denmark. Australia is only the second lowest. Hakan At 01:41 AM 4/27/2003 +0200, you wrote: >At 07:06 PM 4/26/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Andrew Lowe wrote: > > > > > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer > > >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the > > >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia > > >with the USA. > > > > > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, > > >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have > > >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly > > >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the > > >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, > > >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > > > > > >1 death per 6546 in the USA > > >Vs > > >1 death per 11304 in Australia > > > > > > > >Who is waiting for robby the robot to drive them around? Is that the > >general consensus because one person is interested in it? > >Did you take into account road densities and traffic density? The US has > >more intersecting highways through large cities than Australia, with > >more cars driving on them. > >Most accidents are in high density population areas and then it is >not a great difference. It is very few accidents in rural areas in both >places. For sure, Australia have the lowest accident rate in the >world per square kilometer or square mile. > >Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting >highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. > >Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly >1/9 of US. > >Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
At 07:06 PM 4/26/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Andrew Lowe wrote: > > > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer > >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the > >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia > >with the USA. > > > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, > >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have > >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly > >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the > >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, > >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > > > >1 death per 6546 in the USA > >Vs > >1 death per 11304 in Australia > > > > >Who is waiting for robby the robot to drive them around? Is that the >general consensus because one person is interested in it? >Did you take into account road densities and traffic density? The US has >more intersecting highways through large cities than Australia, with >more cars driving on them. Most accidents are in high density population areas and then it is not a great difference. It is very few accidents in rural areas in both places. For sure, Australia have the lowest accident rate in the world per square kilometer or square mile. Germany have less than Australia and have more intersecting highways, higher density and in many highways no speed limit. Sweden and Switzerland have around 1 death per 85,000 or nearly 1/9 of US. Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Andrew Lowe wrote: > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia >with the USA. > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > >1 death per 6546 in the USA >Vs >1 death per 11304 in Australia > >This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in >the US as you are in Australia. Why is this so? The answer can >plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia >has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random >breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. > > There are random "sobriety checks" where I live. > > So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on >the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending >down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. >Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to >introduce measures and stopped both the carnage and cost instead >of waiting for "Robby the Robot" to drive them around ? > > Regards, > Andrew > > Who is waiting for robby the robot to drive them around? Is that the general consensus because one person is interested in it? Did you take into account road densities and traffic density? The US has more intersecting highways through large cities than Australia, with more cars driving on them. > > > -- --- Martin Klingensmith http://nnytech.net/ http://infoarchive.net/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Kim, I wrote my opinion before i read yours and tried to avoid "US bashing". Since you so bluntly are saying what I wanted, I can only second it. Hakan At 01:17 PM 4/26/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:37 AM 4/26/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >Comments below. > > > >-- Perhaps it is the drivers after all > >is said and done, and not the vehicles that are dangerous. > > > >Greg H. > >In Texas, at least, it is the driver instruction. It is a total joke. I >have held an instructors licence in Alberta, Canada for both car and >motorcycle. Driven in Europe, which I loved. It was like a dream of >sharing the road with nothing but professionals that understand the >rules. Now in Texas where I have taken their written tests, I have found >pathetic drivers that don't know that they are dangerous. The test focused >on how much of a fine for what, not the rules of the road. The instructors >here, and I have had to take defensive driving every year to drive DH's >company vehicle, have no idea why the rules are what they are. I have now >taken the course in 7 cities from 8 different companies, they are all the >same. Yeah, I would say it is the drivers. > >Bright Blessings, >Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Keith, I made close to 3,000,000 km in my life and around 40,000 of them in US. Apart from the discussion about SUV and heavy vehicles, in which we have some clear common points, I have some other opinions concerning the majority of accidents in US. It is my experience, that in most parts of the world and especially Europe, Australia and NZ, the driving discipline is better than US. This especially concerning over taking, which in all the world is one of the riskiest maneuvers when driving. US is one of the few places where cars are passing you on the right side in right hand traffic. This only happens in other places, when it is very slow moving cues on multiple lane roads. In US it also generates single vehicle accident in statistics, since many try to avoid a collision and that way have goes off the road. It is also a few other things. Like that the typical American car has under steering, which make it go straight in an avoidance or breaking situation. European and Japanese cars are typically over steering, which will both turn and spin more easy, but in more cases avoid the primary object. Spinning will in itself cause a secondary situation and often an accident. It is several other differences in driving discipline and behavior of vehicles, but the above is the first that pops up in my mind, when thinking about it. Hakan At 01:00 AM 4/27/2003 +0900, you wrote: > >Andrew, > > > >You have a large number of countries that have the same > >ratios or some even better than Australia, > > > >The Netherlands > >Germany > >Switzerland > >Norway > >Finland > >Denmark > >Sweden > >UK > >etc. > > > >I always wondered why US, with corresponding speed limits, > >have such a high fatality rate. It is not my experiences from > >the US, that they need computers to think for them. I do agree > >with you on seat belts and helmets, but it is some other things > >also. I belive the traffic rules are also to blame and especially > >the overtaking rules, that are not enforced at all. The mix of > >vehicles with the popular SUVs, could also assist. It is clear > >evidence that fatalities has dramatically gone down for normal > >autos, but up for accidents with SUVs involved. > > > >Hakan > >Even apart from SUVs, the average size of US cars is probably bigger >than anywhere else, and their accident rates higher than countries >with much smaller average car sizes, and yet there's this ridiculous >idea in the US that small cars are dangerous. It comes as not much of >a surprise that it mostly stems from industry-funded right-wing >"think-tanks" such as the odious Competitive Enterprise Institute, >with whose Sam Kazman Hakan took issue a couple of months back over >his preposterous claims about SUVs. > >Much of the resistance to improved fuel economy standards was based >on the idea (?) that more fuel-efficient cars would necessarily be >smaller, leading to thousands of extra traffic deaths - *these >environmentalist whackos are out to kill us all!!!* > >Yeah, right. Or maybe it's just that certain powerful interests don't >want Americans to use less fuel... > >I thought at first the whole idea might be because US cars are >generally big and the little guys would stand less chance in a >collision with a bigger car, and that seems to be the case when the >big ones are SUVs. But: "Fact: In 1997, latest-available government >data, 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars: 46% from >single-car crashes, 10% from small cars running into each other. Just >1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and >large SUVs -- 136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths that year." > >46% from single-car crashes - these small cars just up and crash on >you all of sudden without warning, they go mad and hit a tree or >something. Nothing to do with collisions with heavies - they're >INHERENTLY more dangerous. And indeed, that's what's claimed. > >Funny, if there were any basis to it at all you'd think the Europeans >and the Japanese might have noticed it by now. Japanese cars (the >ones they don't export) are getting smaller and smaller. I keep >meaning to check it out and haven't yet, but I very much doubt their >accident rates are getting higher and higher accordingly. There are >plenty of high-speed roads here, lots of fast traffic, and lots of >heavy vehicles amidst it all. > >More BS, is all. > >Here are some links to this stuff (previously posted): > >http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/43802/article.html >Fuel-Efficient Vehicles: Your Money or Your Life > >http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/cafeusatoday.html >Death by the gallon -- CAFE Fuel Efficiency Standards > >http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,02353.cfm >CEI.ORG: Competitive Enterprise Institute: Flip-Flopping On Small Car Safety > >Best > >Keith > > > > > >At 10:34 AM 4/26/2003 +1000, you wrote: > > >On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > > > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > > > compute
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
At 10:37 AM 4/26/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Comments below. > >-- Perhaps it is the drivers after all >is said and done, and not the vehicles that are dangerous. > >Greg H. In Texas, at least, it is the driver instruction. It is a total joke. I have held an instructors licence in Alberta, Canada for both car and motorcycle. Driven in Europe, which I loved. It was like a dream of sharing the road with nothing but professionals that understand the rules. Now in Texas where I have taken their written tests, I have found pathetic drivers that don't know that they are dangerous. The test focused on how much of a fine for what, not the rules of the road. The instructors here, and I have had to take defensive driving every year to drive DH's company vehicle, have no idea why the rules are what they are. I have now taken the course in 7 cities from 8 different companies, they are all the same. Yeah, I would say it is the drivers. Bright Blessings, Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
I was on Granville Mall, Vancouver, yesterday. Nice and peaceful and safe. Only city buses, taxis etc. can travel that street. Lots of big green trees along the street and there would be no smog at all to disrupt their growth if all vehicles were electric or hydrogen. If all future city streets were like Granville, Vancouver for example would save 30 lives a year. POC On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Greg and April wrote: > I would go so far as to say that most Americans have not the foggiest idea, > of what the constitution is about let alone what it means for them. Add > into it, the fact that many politicians have given people the wrong idea > about what their rights are, in order to stay in office, and you have the > makings for the bad stew of delusion. > > Greg H > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 18:34 > Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > > > > > I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it > > "violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that > > enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using > > the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people > > killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Comments below. - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 10:00 Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > I thought at first the whole idea might be because US cars are > generally big and the little guys would stand less chance in a > collision with a bigger car, and that seems to be the case when the > big ones are SUVs. But: "Fact: In 1997, latest-available government > data, 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars: 46% from > single-car crashes, 10% from small cars running into each other. Just > 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and > large SUVs -- 136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths that year." > > 46% from single-car crashes - these small cars just up and crash on > you all of sudden without warning, they go mad and hit a tree or > something. Nothing to do with collisions with heavies - they're > INHERENTLY more dangerous. And indeed, that's what's claimed. > > Funny, if there were any basis to it at all you'd think the Europeans > and the Japanese might have noticed it by now. Japanese cars (the > ones they don't export) are getting smaller and smaller. I keep > meaning to check it out and haven't yet, but I very much doubt their > accident rates are getting higher and higher accordingly. There are > plenty of high-speed roads here, lots of fast traffic, and lots of > heavy vehicles amidst it all. > If they are more dangerous, could it be because here in America they have a higher power to weight ratio that else were in the world? I have noticed that in a few cases with small cars that I have driven, that it does not need a heavy foot on the throttle to get up and go slipping into and out of traffic. Perhaps even less respect for other drivers? I have also noticed a trend of small car drivers here to do just as I mentioned before, depending on the throttle and then the brake to get them out of trouble and not signaling their intentions at all. Perhaps it is the drivers after all is said and done, and not the vehicles that are dangerous. Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
I would go so far as to say that most Americans have not the foggiest idea, of what the constitution is about let alone what it means for them. Add into it, the fact that many politicians have given people the wrong idea about what their rights are, in order to stay in office, and you have the makings for the bad stew of delusion. Greg H - Original Message - From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 18:34 Subject: Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002 > > I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it > "violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that > enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using > the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people > killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Andrew: I am replying to this second-hand because of a messup with my email program. >>1 death per 6546 in the USA >> Vs >>1 death per 11304 in Australia >> >>This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in >>the US as you are in Australia. By one way of looking at things. Other ways are to look at the type of driving, or deaths per person-mile traveled, etc. >Why is this so? The answer can >>plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia >>has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random >>breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. So far as I'm aware the U.S. states generally have compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and various testing programs for alcohol including, for example, check-points set up during high-death holiday times. These have been in place for quite some time now. Compulsory seat-belt laws came into play when I was a kid, 20 or 30 years ago. There may of course be difference in the laws, but I think you've got a somewhat different view of the laws here. >> I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it >>"violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that >>enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using >>the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people >>killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. I agree with the view that some Americans have sometimed had a somewhat warped view of their freedoms as they apply to driving enforcement laws. For example, I do not think anyone has the right to drive drunk, that it's a stunning act of bad faith and disrespect for one's fellow man, and that it has become clear that the police are within their rights to watch out for drunk drivers, including check-points, given the shocking number who still do. > >> To take it a step further, there is a large financial cost >>associated with a person dying in a vehicle crash, but there is a >>much larger cost associated with those people who survive the crash >>but suffer some form if incapacitation, or even a long rehabilitation >>period. If a person is permanently injured in a car crash and in turn >>needs life long care, then the costs are huge. I would guess that it >>would cost at least $50,000 per year to look after said injured person >>and if they happen to live for 40 years in this state, that's $2M >>straight away. Also it is worth remembering that for every death on >>the roads, there are a lot of accidents which are severe, resulting is >>no deaths but long term injury. Interesting points. One of the reasons I posted the article. I think these matters are swept under the rug by our system of sort of not discussing the negative aspects of driving. > >> So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on >>the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending >>down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. >>Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to >>introduce measures and stopped both the carnage and cost instead >>of waiting for "Robby the Robot" to drive them around ? >> >> Regards, >> Andrew The U.S. has taken most of the measures you suggest, if I'm not mistaken. Also, you have misrepresented and even perhaps grossly misrepresented my call for greater vehicle safety. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
>Andrew, > >You have a large number of countries that have the same >ratios or some even better than Australia, > >The Netherlands >Germany >Switzerland >Norway >Finland >Denmark >Sweden >UK >etc. > >I always wondered why US, with corresponding speed limits, >have such a high fatality rate. It is not my experiences from >the US, that they need computers to think for them. I do agree >with you on seat belts and helmets, but it is some other things >also. I belive the traffic rules are also to blame and especially >the overtaking rules, that are not enforced at all. The mix of >vehicles with the popular SUVs, could also assist. It is clear >evidence that fatalities has dramatically gone down for normal >autos, but up for accidents with SUVs involved. > >Hakan Even apart from SUVs, the average size of US cars is probably bigger than anywhere else, and their accident rates higher than countries with much smaller average car sizes, and yet there's this ridiculous idea in the US that small cars are dangerous. It comes as not much of a surprise that it mostly stems from industry-funded right-wing "think-tanks" such as the odious Competitive Enterprise Institute, with whose Sam Kazman Hakan took issue a couple of months back over his preposterous claims about SUVs. Much of the resistance to improved fuel economy standards was based on the idea (?) that more fuel-efficient cars would necessarily be smaller, leading to thousands of extra traffic deaths - *these environmentalist whackos are out to kill us all!!!* Yeah, right. Or maybe it's just that certain powerful interests don't want Americans to use less fuel... I thought at first the whole idea might be because US cars are generally big and the little guys would stand less chance in a collision with a bigger car, and that seems to be the case when the big ones are SUVs. But: "Fact: In 1997, latest-available government data, 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars: 46% from single-car crashes, 10% from small cars running into each other. Just 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and large SUVs -- 136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths that year." 46% from single-car crashes - these small cars just up and crash on you all of sudden without warning, they go mad and hit a tree or something. Nothing to do with collisions with heavies - they're INHERENTLY more dangerous. And indeed, that's what's claimed. Funny, if there were any basis to it at all you'd think the Europeans and the Japanese might have noticed it by now. Japanese cars (the ones they don't export) are getting smaller and smaller. I keep meaning to check it out and haven't yet, but I very much doubt their accident rates are getting higher and higher accordingly. There are plenty of high-speed roads here, lots of fast traffic, and lots of heavy vehicles amidst it all. More BS, is all. Here are some links to this stuff (previously posted): http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/43802/article.html Fuel-Efficient Vehicles: Your Money or Your Life http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/cafeusatoday.html Death by the gallon -- CAFE Fuel Efficiency Standards http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,02353.cfm CEI.ORG: Competitive Enterprise Institute: Flip-Flopping On Small Car Safety Best Keith > >At 10:34 AM 4/26/2003 +1000, you wrote: > >On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > > > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > > > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > > > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > > > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > > > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > > > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > > > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > > > > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=DE0 > > > D502D-4FB5-4B39-B52E-ECA47FC0CF9B > > > > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer > >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the > >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia > >with the USA. > > > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, > >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have > >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly > >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the > >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, > >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > > > >1 death per 6546 in the USA > > Vs > >1 death per 11304 in Australia > > > >This means that you are nearly twice as li
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
Andrew, You have a large number of countries that have the same ratios or some even better than Australia, The Netherlands Germany Switzerland Norway Finland Denmark Sweden UK etc. I always wondered why US, with corresponding speed limits, have such a high fatality rate. It is not my experiences from the US, that they need computers to think for them. I do agree with you on seat belts and helmets, but it is some other things also. I belive the traffic rules are also to blame and especially the overtaking rules, that are not enforced at all. The mix of vehicles with the popular SUVs, could also assist. It is clear evidence that fatalities has dramatically gone down for normal autos, but up for accidents with SUVs involved. Hakan At 10:34 AM 4/26/2003 +1000, you wrote: >On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > > > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=DE0 > > D502D-4FB5-4B39-B52E-ECA47FC0CF9B > > I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer >control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the >US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia >with the USA. > > Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, >literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have >similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly >280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the >US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, >according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: > >1 death per 6546 in the USA > Vs >1 death per 11304 in Australia > >This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in >the US as you are in Australia. Why is this so? The answer can >plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia >has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random >breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. > > I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it >"violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that >enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using >the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people >killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. > > To take it a step further, there is a large financial cost >associated with a person dying in a vehicle crash, but there is a >much larger cost associated with those people who survive the crash >but suffer some form if incapacitation, or even a long rehabilitation >period. If a person is permanently injured in a car crash and in turn >needs life long care, then the costs are huge. I would guess that it >would cost at least $50,000 per year to look after said injured person >and if they happen to live for 40 years in this state, that's $2M >straight away. Also it is worth remembering that for every death on >the roads, there are a lot of accidents which are severe, resulting is >no deaths but long term injury. > > So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on >the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending >down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. >Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to >introduce measures and stopped both the carnage and cost instead >of waiting for "Robby the Robot" to drive them around ? > > Regards, > Andrew > ** If you want to take a look on a project that is very close to my heart, go to: http://energysavingnow.com/ http://hakan.vitools.net/ My .Net Card http://hakan.vitools.org/ About me http://vitools.com/ My webmaster site http://playa.nu/ Our small rental activities ** "No flag is large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people" -- Howard Zinn "Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul." - Unknown Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
On 24 Apr 2003 at 20:52, murdoch wrote: > As I mentioned last month, I am in favor of looking into greater > computer control of vehicles, or, more accurately, gradually increased > automated vehicle driving and warning systems, integrated with driver > command, to reduce traffic deaths. I believe such a trend has been > implemented, over the decades, in modern jumbo jets and has saved > lives. It has not proven to be a cure-all and premature turning of > jet control over to full computer control has proven, on at least one > occassion, to be fatal. But I think if something can be done to > reduce the dangers of driving then it ought be looked-into. IMO. > > http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=DE0 > D502D-4FB5-4B39-B52E-ECA47FC0CF9B I think you are getting a bit carried away with "computer control of vehicles" when a bit of common sense will nearly halve the US road toll. By way of example, lets compare and contrast Australia with the USA. Both countries are affluent, with high standards of living, literacy, numeracy and media penetration. Both countries also have similar attitudes towards automobiles. The populations are roughly 280.5M, USA, Vs 19.5M, Australia. The death rate, for 2002, in the US is 42850, as reported above whilst in Australia it is 1725, according to http://www.atsb.gov.au. As a ratio this works out at: 1 death per 6546 in the USA Vs 1 death per 11304 in Australia This means that you are nearly twice as likely to die on the roads in the US as you are in Australia. Why is this so? The answer can plainly be seen when you take into account the fact that Australia has compulsory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws and random breath testing with a limit, in most state of 0.05. I am constantly amazed that some Americans claim that it "violates their constitutional rights" if legislation is brought in that enforces seat-belts/helmets and allows random breath testing. Using the above figures, it could be argued that nearly half of the people killed on US roads could be EASILY saved. To take it a step further, there is a large financial cost associated with a person dying in a vehicle crash, but there is a much larger cost associated with those people who survive the crash but suffer some form if incapacitation, or even a long rehabilitation period. If a person is permanently injured in a car crash and in turn needs life long care, then the costs are huge. I would guess that it would cost at least $50,000 per year to look after said injured person and if they happen to live for 40 years in this state, that's $2M straight away. Also it is worth remembering that for every death on the roads, there are a lot of accidents which are severe, resulting is no deaths but long term injury. So where does that leave us? Australia has a death rate on the roads that is constantly, except for a one year "blip". trending down whilst from my reading of the article, seems to be trending up. Isn't it time that the US took some action on these simple to introduce measures and stopped both the carnage and cost instead of waiting for "Robby the Robot" to drive them around ? Regards, Andrew Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
