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/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/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/
