43,443 people died in 2005 from auto accidents (more than 15X US Iraq Soldier Death totals)...

[Blackhatjack]

******************************************************************
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
Fatality Analysis Reporting System of teh National Center For Statistics & Analysis
In 2005 there were 39,189 fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes
With 37,594 Vehicle Occupants and Motorcycle Riders Fatalities
43,443 total crash fatalities when non-motorist deaths of 5,849 were added
*******************************************************************
the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Highway fatalities account for more than 94% of all transportation deaths. There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S.
The total number of fatalities rose 1.4 percent from 42,836 in 2004 to 43,443 in 2005
********************************************************************

It is the biggest issue "under the radar" in this country.

And there are plain common sense things that can be done to cut that number by thousands each year, but you have to go up against the powerful automobile makers lobby to enact those changes.
We are all are aware that 3000 plus died in 9/11, and over 2800 US soldiers have died in Iraq, but there is very little public awareness of the 13,000 plus who die on our nation's highways each year --and in many cases these deaths could have been prevented.

*I support individual freedom as much as anyone, but consider the rationality of states that do not require use of helmets for motorcycle riders. Head injury statistics skyrocket in those states, and fatalities go up as well.

*Speed limits in excess of 55 mph cut down on the time a driver has to react to a dangerous situation, and speed has been proven a major contributor to most fatalities. Yet speed limits have risen across the country, in many cases to 70 mph or higher.

*Seat belt usage has been proven to dramatically reduce the likelihood of fatalities, yet some states do little to enforce seat beat use compliance.

*Teenagers are at greatest risk of injury and fatality during the first three(3) years of driving, and graduated drivers licensing programs have been proven statistically to reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities associated with teenage drivers.

*Automatic braking systems and computer assisted steering systems have been proven to reduce accidents and injuries, but their installation and use in automobiles is not required because car makers are afraid the added costs will impact new vehicle purchases.

*Automatic tire pressure sensors likewise dramatically reduce the circumstances that lead to loss of control of automobiles, but they are not required.

*Closed circuit rear view cameras completely eliminate the blind spot behind passenger vans, SUVs and large vehicles, and would have saved thousands of kids 'backed over' by their parents and others if required just a few years ago when the technology became available.

*Automatic 'sleep' sensor systems are being used in Japan and other countries which are effective in reducing accidents and fatalities caused by driving while 'sleep deprived', but are not required in the US. (Sleep deprivation is thought to be greatly more likely the major contributing factor to auto accidents than drug and alcohol impairment).

*And when it comes to alcohol impairment, mandatory use of vehicle ignition systems which require alcohol free breath samples would significantly reduce the repeat driving while impaired offenders and their resulting accidents and fatalities.

*** These are just a few of the measures that could be mandated and implemented which would save thousands of lives each and every year.

So next time you think about the horrible loss of life we suffered in the attacks on 9/11 and the loss of life in Iraq, do not discount the importance of those losses to their families, friends and their country.

Just remember also that there are many more families getting the same dreaded notices that a loved one has been killed, however the cause was an automobile accident.

When you drive home today, look around and realize that 43,000 people driving and riding in automobiles, or sharing the road with them, in the US today will be dead at this time next year from auto accidents --and the sad fact is there are things we can do which would save thousands of them from their premature demise, if only we have the desire and will to adopt even a few of the above suggestions.

43,000 fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters, ....DEAD..... period.

Think about it.

Then do something about it. Call, write, email, talk to your Congressman. Tell them to enact some of the above suggestions so that more may live.

Your life may depend on it.

[4dsc]

1. Stupid analogy!!

how many people drive cars on a daily basis versus the number of troops in iraq??

[originalpckelly]

7. I think you're missing the point...

In about 1 and 1/2 years the same number of people die on the road as did in the entire Vietnam War. Where are the protests for that?

That is the problem, cars are safer, but are not nearly safe enough. People don't treat them like they do a gun, but guns kill fewer people in this country every year. The murder rate is about 15000+ add that to a number of suicides by gun, and the extremely small number of people killed in gun accidents, and you will get a number about 10000 people smaller.

That's the point.

[Blackhatjack]

12. Right you are. It helps to have others give yet another accurate assessment

of the bottom line data.

I do not understand the indifference to loss of human life displayed by some people. Especially when there is something we can do about it.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Perhaps if your post dealt with car deaths specifically, you might get further.

But I think your intent wasn't specifically about car deaths, which is why you didn't post specifically about car deaths.

[Blackhatjack]

39. No I was dealing specifically about auto accident fatalities, see post #9

I was trying to bring a very important issue before a group that is familiar with the process of contacting their Congressmen.

I knew everyone here is painfully aware of the deaths related to 911 and our troops in Iraq. I was not denigrating those deaths in any way. I was merely pointing out that fifteen times more people die each year from auto accidents, thousands of which could be saved with enactment of a few suggestions, and yet there is much less discussion.

[Judi Lynn]

147. "I was not denigrating those deaths in any way." Oh, really? Sure you were.

I've heard right-wing idiot show hosts drag these stats out all the time, have been doing this pathetic routine FOR YEARS. Jeesus H. Christ.

You forgot to include the hundreds of thousands of helpless dead Iraqi citizens.

Use your time on more intelligent and productive subjects, and don't try to play stupid games on the DU'ers. We've heard this old crap for ages. Idiotic.

[Kellyiswise]

126. But it is claimed that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since US invasion.

Is there really any comparrison between killing hundreds of thousands and plundering an entire nation while destablizing the rest of the world people dying in auto accidents because of their own bad habits, hubris, and bad luck?

[Vexatious Ape]

2. Great Right wing talking point

I think Brit Hume used it one time. I know an asshole I work with did.

[wryter2000]

4. Idea for Brit and any other asshole who uses it

"Then, why don't you quit driving and go to Iraq?" On edit: not including the OP in this post.

[Blackhatjack]

13. Explain to me how this is a rightwing talking point. ..... n/t

[BOSSHOG]

20. Its genesis is in the right wing audience

who will believe anything their gods tell them. limbaugh uses it often.

Why all the gnashing of the teeth about the troops killed in Iraq?

- More people get killed in car wrecks
- the troops are volunteers
- Many of them lie about PTSD when they return home

Its quite easy and incredibly pathetic how little it takes to sate the justification of those way too proud and way too ignorant to understand complex issues.

[treestar]

28. Exactly, and it fails to account for the fact that some accidental

auto deaths are unavoidable, but death in an unncessary war is unnecessary. There is some risk in driving a car, but the payoff is that the odds are greater you will get where you wanted to go. The payoff for dying in Iraq is nothing (it's not "our freedom" because we know that is in no danger.)

So when the RW says this they are 1)making light of deaths in Iraq and 2)failing to admit that these are unnecessary deaths of people who might otherwise not have died in car accidents, or had no greater chance of that than anybody else.

[Blackhatjack]

44. Obviously some people cannot see past the analogy, see post #9

Nothing was said to denigrate the deaths of our soldiers or the wisdom of starting the Iraq War.

But how do you view the deaths of people who could be saved if we altered our personal freedom ever so slightly? Are their lives not valuable?

[kysrsoze]

145. Not to mention the per-capita percentage difference (a fraction). When you consider

the percentage of motor vehicle fatalities on a per-capita basis, the soldiers' death rate is 65X higher than that of the normal population. Figure non-deadly injuries and that rate is significantly higher.

[Blackhatjack]

29. This has absolutely nothing to do with Limbaugh or rightwing audiences...

I have worked in this field for over 20 years and there is nothing partisan about the urgency of the issue or the compilation of the statistics.

I would take offense that you imply I am carrying water for rightwing groups, but then you obviously misunderstood the intent of the OP.

[BOSSHOG]

42. You make the comparison in your headline

just like limbaugh makes on the radio. It obviously is two different subjects but you have mixed and matched them. I'm all for the continued improvement in auto safety and hope it continues. But auto safety and deaths of Americans due to war and lies and incompetence and politics is apples and oranges and yet some in this country use the comparison for political purposes. No doubt that is not your intent but it says so right in the subject line.

One who lacks intellectual curiousity might conclude that it is safer in Iraq then on American Highways; just what conservative philosophers who support the conflict in Iraq want them to think.

[Blackhatjack]

45. See post # 9 This has nothing to do with Limbaugh/Rightwingers, etc.

Did you read the OP?

WHere did I say any of the assumptions you are attributing to me regarding the 'deaths of Americans due to war and lies and incompetence"???

"Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the rock this morning" (That is a joke btw)

[zbdent]

36. the "slippery slope" argument, usually used when someone with

research tries to point out the dangers of something ... the "right wing talking point" goes on the insane tangent of saying "well, we should ban everything because it's dangerous!"

Dumbs down the entire point to ridicule ... and avoids serious discussion ...

Uses an inappropriate analogy ... like the "smoking vs ice cream" talking point ... ban public smoking because it's unhealthy ... "Well, ice cream's unhealthy, let's ban eating ice cream in public!" - uh, nobody's throwing ice cream down your throat and into your stomach ... a better analogy (and of course, avoided by the RW idiot making his/her 'point') would be the fact that you buy a nice new home in a nice neighborhood ... and suddenly, a pig farm is built upwind of you (against zoning) ... and right next door is a guy who decides that you should enjoy his version of music ... from 10pm until 6am, when everybody else (including you) is sleeping ...

The "slippery slope" is a favorite of RW talking points ... and throws reason away from reality ...

Now, if you would pare down that "number of casualties from car wrecks" to reflect only the police officers, that would be more accurately reflecting the situation in Iraq ... we are only (barely) hearing about the "police" of Iraq ... our fighting men and women ... not about the contractors doing the work that the military normally did during previous conflicts (and likely for less money than the fat paychecks the private contracters get), not about the civilians (oops, sorry, "collateral damage") killed by our fighting over there ... this administration gives the civilian casualty numbers that even strict conservatives would probably agree to be hysterically low ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. With the RW it is meant to minimize the Iraqi war deaths.

Obviously, here it is meant to emphasize the auto fatalities, by drawing a known comparison.

[Quantess]

80. Absolutely is a RW tactic to minimize Iraq invasion deaths.

Blackhatjack, now you know.

[Blackhatjack]

89. Are you incapable of living and thinking independently of rightwing talking points?

I thought there was no need to educate posters on the concept of examination and discussion of issues in the 'marketplace of ideas."

Honestly, I do not look for a Rush Limbaugh rightwing talking point in every idea raised for discussion here. Your life must be pretty sad if that is your normal operating procedure.

Nothing I have said or posted minimizes Iraq invasion deaths - our soldiers or Iraqis. Nothing I have posted in over 1000 posts lends even the least credence to my holding that position. In fact I have been against the invasion and war in Iraq from the beginning, but that should have nothing to do with the topic I raised in the OP.

Quantessd -- "Now you know....."

[Quantess]

91. I believe you! I'm not accusing you of anything.

"Now you know" meant that, I guess you didn't know that this analogy has been used for duplicitous purposes by neocons, so next time you'll do it differently. You can't help it that RWers had already abused the analogy. Try posting the "heart" of the post again in a few days, in a way that people won't get distracted.

I know you had pure intentions!
:hi:

[Vexatious Ape]

55. They've used it before.

They use stats like this to down play the death toll in the Iraq War. Rush has done it, and I'm sure the idiot Hannity has also. I watched Hume on Fox say something about it a year or two ago.

[elocs]

82. I know a freeper who used that exact same analogy.

"Well more people die in car accidents that have died in Iraq". Stupid, just plain stupid. How many deaths in Iraq were "accidents"? The importance of dealing with motor vehicle accidents has enough merits in and of itself without having to be compared to deaths in Iraq.

[ixion]

3. why do autos hate America?

:+

Actually, I don't think this a valid comparison, and I don't support of bunch of new laws on the roads. ;-)

[Vexatious Ape]

11. They hate us for our freedom of course.

[Greyhound]

96. Don't worry, they're making sure we won't have any of that soon, and then

we'll all be happy and safe and the sun will shine and all will be right in the world, if only we weren't so stupid, we would see that they only have our best interests at heart.

[Blackhatjack]

18. The death number comparison is 100% accurate. Which 'new laws' do you oppose?

Wearing a seatbelt? or a helmet when you ride a motorcycle? or a reduced speed limit?

[ixion]

43. all of the above

I do support, however, teaching people to drive better. ;-)

[hfojvt]

49. I oppose at least two of those three

then again, I do not drive a motorcycle. I put about 600 miles on my bicycle every year, without wearing a helmet. I've gotten a couple seatbelt tickets too. I just don't think I need the government or an insurance company to make safety decisions for me. I'd have to see stats on speed limits and fatalities, or accidents. I would think it is different in places like Michigan and Ohio, where interstates are wall to wall cars and South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska which are quite roomy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Make speed limits variable based on traffic density?

I've driven in the SE, where 80 is the height of recklessness. And I've driven across Nebraska, where if you don't do 80 you never get anywhere. The 55mph limit makes a lot of sense in some places, but in others it makes no sense at all - but of course we have to have a one-size-fits-all system.

[Blackhatjack]

64. Talk to a pediatric neurosurgeon and you might change your mind about helmets....

.... the head injuries related to bike accidents without helmets is almost totally preventable, and often the injuries are permanent and life altering.

The reason you need the government to step in and regulate private enterprise is that unless they do, the economics of making lifesaving decisions will drive the company not to incorporate lifesaving changes otherwise.

Remember the Ford pinto rear gas tank decision? Ford made the conscious decision not to recall the vehicles and make a repair that cost less than $20, and instead chose to pay the wrongful death and personal injury damages that they knew would arise if they did not recall the vehicles for the repairs. It came down to money.

Likewise, only government can make companies install 'clean air' devices that benefit us all. Bush has proven that 'voluntary regulation' of air pollution controls does not work.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Next tell us all about the murder rate in DC

[Blackhatjack]

22. OK, what does the murder rate in D.C. have to do with 43,443 dead auto accident victims?

The 43,443 dead accident victims are just as dead whether the murder rate in D.C. goes up or down. I fail to understand your logic on this topic.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. It's another tactic

used by freepers and war mongers to take the focus off of our soldiers dying in Iraq. They tell us that the chances of being murdered in DC are greater than the chances of being killed in the war in Iraq. Many RW blogs have stressed this for a couple years now. This car accident distraction is one of their newer tactics.

[Blackhatjack]

54. Where is the mention of the murder rate in D.C. in the OP???

ARe you looking for a reason to connect the two where none exists? Or are you a mindreader?

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. I am explaining it's another way to divert attention from the Iraq invasion

and its devastating consequences.

Do you get it now? :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. I am not a mindreader but I am a RW blog reader

And I have seen this talking point on many of those sites lately.

Nice try though.

[Blackhatjack]

92. Well I don't visit rightwing blogs like you, so I guess it was not "a nice try' afterall

.... I am sorry but I fail to see how you could read the OP and come to the conclusion you claim you reached.

Are you so sensitized to everything rightwing that you cannot discuss an issue on its merits without looking for a conspiracy theory?

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. Read over your responses and get a clue

I am not the only one here who assumed you were pushing talking points we would rather not see posted here.

[Blackhatjack]

110. Oh give me a break! Where are the other 98,000 registered users that agree with you?

I guess you are incapable of thinking on your own, and the rightwingers have accomplished their goal --they control your every thought.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. There are 13 other posts in this thread

that make the same point I made. And instead of listening and taking what we are saying to heart, you get nasty. hmmmm

[Blackhatjack]

113. Your incivility and ignorance do not make a compelling argument

... I guess you think you are the self-appointed conscience of this site.

You need to get a clue that not everybody is ruled by the rightwing talking points, not everybody thinks your position was delivered to you by divine revelation, and in a democracy you need to take your lumps because we all have the the right to free speech and free thought.

If your position is supported by the 'marketplace of ideas' your persuasion will be rewarded. However, I think you just like the pedestal you have set yourself up on and think you are the arbitrar of all things DU.

Get a life, read a book, discuss ideas that are outside your comfort zone, and you may be surprised that rightwingers only have the power over you that you allow them to have.

Thanks a lot for casting dispersions on my character and making unsupported and outrageous statements that have nothing to do with the purpose of my post.

Let me know when one of your family members or friends is killed on the highway, and I will be interested to see if you hold fast to your present position. Be sure to point out to them that any mention of how that tragedy could be averted in the future is a rightwing talking point --I am sure they will like that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Much more than the Iraq KIA count has, for one thing. -nt

[yella_dawg]

6. Woo Hoo!

What a great opportunity to enact a whole mess of new laws. I was just this morning wondering what new laws we could have to trade freedom for the illusion of security and safety.

If safety and security are such priorities, crawl under your bed and stay there.

[havocmom]

17. Or, we could flip Big Oil the bird and get serious about mass transit

for starters

Then we could work toward sustainable lifestyles that pare down the need to commute so damn far to work, school, cultural involvement

Not such a bad way to address the carnage.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Yep, the OP is right. We need to leave Iraq and put hundreds of billions into mass transit.!

[havocmom]

32. Spending some of that loot on college education for our youngsters

might go a long way toward solving a LOT of problems ;)

How much could be done with 11 million an hour? The GOP never seems to think there is money to address our problems in any meaningful way, but they can sure find the bucks to do the alchemy of turning blood to gold for their sponsors.

I could do a lot of good with just one hour's worth of Iraq War funds.

[zbdent]

38. Just imagine what we could do for educating the masses

spending just $2,000,000,000 a week at home, instead of on Iraq (so that oil companies can get record profits ...)

[Quantess]

83. now THAT's a comparison I like! (EOM)

[John Q. Citizen]

76. After we invest in mass mass transit, the money saved on highways and

protecting foriegn oil and on oil itself could put a lot of people through school, no doubt.

[Blackhatjack]

48. I have no prob with mass transit investment, but was not mention in the OP....n/t

[grizmaster]

33. in total agreement on that

politicians just love mesmerizing voters with new laws instead of actually doing something of real value, like enforcing laws already on the books and removing bad laws from the books.

For instance, you COULD get me worked up for a repeal of the War Commissions Act

[Blackhatjack]

37. So you would rather have people drive cars which are less safe & hit you?

How is that a rational conclusion? Your freedom from the 'restraint' you perceive from these suggestions is more important than the lives of you, your family and other innocent people?

[kentuck]

8. But the cars do not make enemies to come back and kill us later...

Cars do not create the hatred of war or kill those innocents that are not in the car. People die in accidents - it's an accepted part of life. Wars are not accidents. They are intentional. One is murder. The other is accidental.

[havocmom]

27. Cars have fostered a specific social culture. So much built around their use

that, yes, it does become a generational problem. We don't even try to deal with lifestyle changes that would lessen our dependence on the car. The more we depend, the more we allow the culture of cars to dominate and it is like a cancer.

We fight for oil to keep them running. We make enemies in those fights. We create the next generation of people who hate us, not for our freedom, but for our greedy consumption.

And when we fail to stop building roads and divert to other means of transportation, we ARE creating more deaths in the next generation, via the continued dependence on that which has already proven itself very dangerous and invasive.

I have long maintained the anti-christ may have been Henry Ford. ;)

[Blackhatjack]

53. So how do you feel about child safety statutes? Or Clean Air regulation?

Are childhood accidents and dirty polluted air the type of accidents that are an accepted part of life?

We should act in a compassionate and humane way in dealing with risks that can be minimized.

[kentuck]

123. How can we reduce the risk of war?

It's probably safe to say that Iraq War coud have been prevented and over a halfmillion lives saved? Wouldn't even need seat belts to prevent those deaths...

[Blackhatjack]

9. So forget the analogy, how do you feel about 43443 people dead per year?

I find it hard to believe you would welcome the knock on your door with an officer delivering news your wife, child, parent, or sibling just died in an automobile accident -- rather than be inconvenienced by more motor vehicle regulation.

If that is your perspective on human life, there is something missing.

IF you read the entire OP there were suggestions which would save lives if enacted.

edited to add last line.

[BOSSHOG]

52. I wholeheartedly endorse

the continued search for safety measures relative to the use of our highways. In my 24 years in the Navy I've had to make that knock on the door to tell unsuspecting parents that their son was killed during a shipboard accident or a drug overdose or, in one case, an auto accident and then there was the one who was killed in a Navy training flight in Pensacola; not to mention the shipmate who committed suicide a half hour before he was to be courtmartialed (messy scene in the barracks.) It sure ain't pleasant. I've also had to work some of those incidents. Scenes that never leave the mind. BUT, your argument is self-contained; it does not need the comparison of the troops dying in the field.

The rock was pretty damned cold this morning; I pulled the sheets way over my head.

[Blackhatjack]

59. See post # 9 --Then know I have been in that situation myself...

I have watched a young marine struggle to deal with his operation of a motor vehicle in an irresponsible manner that took the lives of two other people.

The funeral that follows, the scar that is left on survivors by those missing, the horror of the individual who has to carry that load of blame for the rest of his/her life.

If we can do something about this unnecessary loss of life, why would people be against that.

I feel for you in having to perform that most thankless but important task of informing families of the death of a loved one. You have my admiration and thanks.

I have seen too much to remain silent, as I assume you have.

[liberal N proud]

10. Comparing accident statistics to casualties from an elective war?

That just pisses me off when that comparison is made.

[Blackhatjack]

66. I compared Numbers of Deaths -- to 9/11 and to the Iraq War

I never said anything about the Iraq War. Sorry if you just automatically respond angrily to a numbers comparison.

[MyNameGoesHere]

71. if you would have compared

our accident rates to other countries i would have been all ears. But this is just stupid on your part. may even be flame bait. Feeling the need to be picked on?

[graywarrior]

14. According tho this article from 2000, 225,000 die each year from medical errors

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).

[Blackhatjack]

70. I am familiar with these deaths as well --and govt regulation is being fought

Just for an example --color coded prescription containers, and chart entries could save hundreds a year from death by medication error.

WE will never stop these kind of errors if we expect the individual healthcare providers to 'voluntarily' implement these measures with no government oversight and regulation. It is viewed as an unnecessary step in providing healthcare service, it adds an additional cost and an additional duty to see that it is implemented.

[Greyhound]

97. I know it would be objectionable to an insurance industry hack, but how about

returning to a sane medical system where doctors have the time and resources to actually care for their patients? How about an objective method to rid the profession of the hacks that are committing nearly all of the medical malpractice in this country, instead of trusting "the club" to police its own members?

[MindPilot]

15. Interesting isn't it?

No one gives a second thought about the statistical fact that you are far, far more like to meet your maker on the way home from work than to ever be the victim of a terrorist; comparatively the terrorist threat is so small that it can be considered to be non-existent. Yet we go to war to protect Americans from terrorists.

We are doing much better though. These numbers are off the top of my head so they may not be totally accurate, but in terms of fatalities per miles driven the statistics have improved dramatically over the past few decades. I the sixties, the figure was something along the lines of 30 deaths per 100,000 miles, now that is IIRC, eleven.

While the technological advances have and will continue to help prevent crashes and reduce the severity of a collision when it does occur, there is a lot that can be done to make roads safer, (a vast majority of fatalities occur on secondary roads as opposed to freeways) improve signage & signaling systems and improve traffic flow.

And I really think there should be a concerted nationwide effort to implement regular testing and continuing driver education. Pilots have to test and retrain regularly, why shouldn't drivers?

[hfojvt]

68. I am guessing that the miles driven per year

has gone way up too, as families move further apart and commutes get ridiculously long.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. When you look at deaths as a percentage of the population, Iraq is a lot worse.

Unless the only deaths that you want to count are American deaths.

I'm for auto safety, but to compare it to war deaths is to trivialize the gross injustice and the inhumanity of war.

If everyone of the auto safety fixes were implemented, how many lives would it save?

If the US hadn't committed agression on Iraq, how many lives would have been saved?

And your linkage of 9/11 to Iraq is rather right-wingish of you, I must say.

Is that what the "black hat" is all about?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. Also, for the most part people decide to take the risk in autos

The citizens of Iraq made no such decision when we invaded.

[Tempest]

25. Exactly! And that's why per capita deaths are never compared

Per capita, the death rate in Iraq is much greater than vehicle deaths in the U.S.

[MindPilot]

46. The OP did not compare the two or even attempt to statistically link them

He simply pointed out that there is another huge group of fatalities that can be reduced or prevented.

And the only way to accurately assess traffic deaths is number of fatalities per miles driven. Anything else is apples to ducks.

Linking 9/11 to Iraq? Can you point out exactly where in the post he said or even implied that? The two are mentioned in the same sentence, that's all.

[Blackhatjack]

73. I guess some people entirely missed the point which you got....

"He simply pointed out that there is another huge group of fatalities that can be reduced or prevented."

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. I think you missed his point.

If you think 2800 deaths in Iraq is bad (pretty much a given, on this site) give a thought to the 43,000 killed each year on the nation's highways.

That's all.

[Blackhatjack]

75. Thank you. That was it in a nutshell.

And we can do something about those deaths on the highways by adopting some commonsense measures which I suggested.

[grizmaster]

23. 43,443 out of 300,000,000 is only .014481%

sounds like we have an incredibly small fatality rate to me. In my opinion we have plenty enough traffic laws already.


How about we concentrate on the unecessary slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqis out of a population of 28,807,000 instead.

[Selatius]

34. Actually, the latest study puts the Iraqi death toll at 655,000 dead

The Ministry of Health says 150,000 Iraqis are confirmed dead. (i.e. they have a name to the dead body)

[grizmaster]

41. I figured I'd go with the more conservative figure

but you're right. And using that figure instead, it's 2.27% of the Iraqi population that has been needlessly murdered.

kinda puts it in perspective don't it?

[berni_mccoy]

35. DING DING DING. NAIL ON HEAD.

While 3000 soldiers out of 120,000 deployed is about 2.5% BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Efilroft Sul]

24. GM lied, our drivers died?

Actually, I'm not here to mock your concern for road safety. Whatever you can do to make this world a better place is to be applauded. But I think the circumstances leading to the deaths of our troops trumps the circumstances leading to the deaths of 43,000 on the roads, and I think that's the root of others' hostility here to your post. Much more significance can be attached to a dead soldier or Marine in Ramadi than a pedestrian killed in, say, Pittsburgh, by a hit-and-run accident. With the dead serviceman or woman, we're talking questions of executive judgment, foreign policy, inadequate body armor, and such. This is stuff that moves the world, or at least it has for the last nearly four years. If our leaders can't solve Iraq first, if they can't stop the killing there, I don't have much hope for them making driving safer here at home.

Just my $.02.

[dubykc]

30. You've done your research on the "fixes", but what about...

the research on the COST of these changes to vehicles and the enforcement of new laws, or even existing laws for that matter. Cars are already way over-priced and the changes you suggest to save lives would put them completely out of reach for many people who deparately need a vehicle to conduct their daily lives.

Having the changes you suggest "available" is one thing, having them mandatory is quite another.

[Blackhatjack]

77. OK I will use a real life example to address your "Cost" concern...

IN the US today a 'child safety seat' is required to transport infants and children in an automobile. It was not always that way.

Prior to the enactment of "child safety seat' regulation, there were infant and child injuries documented for a long period of time --and auto manufacturers were well aware of the problem. They never designed or installed the child safety seat as an option because of the 'perceived cost' that it would add to the ultimate cost of the vehicle, impacting future sales.

Finally the government took an active role to protect the vulnerable infants and children and required that child safety seats be used in all automobiles. People were worried that they would not be able to afford the seats to transport their infants and children. In most cases the State and local government made funds available to provide child safety seats to families who could not otherwise afford them.

Why did the government step in and require this regulation? The answer is medical care costs. They realized that it was much cheaper to provide 'free' child care seats to families that could not afford them than to incur the unreimbursed medical care costs associated with injuries arising from accidents where child care seats were not used.

Sometimes there is a 'cost savings' that eclipses the 'added purchase cost' of a manufactured item. The problem is that the manufacturer does not realize the 'cost saving' and the consumer and government provider of medical care costs do.

So the trick is to have government enact and enforce safety measures that result in its own benefit and the benefit of its citizens, and if incentives to auto manufacturers are necessary it will still be a 'cost saving' measure to the government.

And do not forget all the infants and children who have been saved from death and injury because this regulation was enacted.

AS parents began to appreciate the protective benefit of using child safety seats, their willingness to pay for the added safety prodded the automobile industry to design better child safety seats and use them as an incentive to buy their vehicle. Everyone today recognizes the benefit, and everyone is better off because the government regulation was applied.

[B Calm]

31. How many people drive cars in the US everyday vs how many soldiers

fighting in Iraq?

[Bandit]

40. But how many Iraqis died during same period?

five fold I would say or do only American lives count and was it only American lives that were lost in auto accidents? :crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

So you're saying 9-11 was no big deal.

Right?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

60. I read the title, and I was offended. I then read the OP, and wondered, "Why the offensive title?"

The poster could have chosen sudden infant death syndrome, lung cancer, or choking on chicken sandwiches. Why the comparison to Iraq? The answer is that he wanted to start a shitstorm. Mission Accomplished.

[T Town Jake]

61. Exactamundo.

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

72. I think the idea was to get people to care maybe half as much

about auto safety as they do about Iraq.

Mission impossible.

[Blackhatjack]

79. You need a refresher course on reading your crystal ball...

You have no idea what you are talking about. How could a numbers comparison 'offend' you?

Sheesh, do you really see a conspiracy theory in this? See post #9.

[WindRavenX]

142. there has been a large influx of this type of trolling since 11/7

Things that make you go 'hmmmmmmmmmmm' :think:

[Beaverhausen]

62. "you fuckers?" Nice

and just what the fuck do you want us to do about it?

[grizmaster]

69. read it, read it again, and it's still a BS point

see post 23

[T Town Jake]

56. Let's just ban left turns. Come to think of it, let's just ban cars.

...:sarcasm:
And, as regards the appalling comparison to Chimpy McGigglenuts unnecessary war of choice in Iraq you've chosen to indulge in: I've heard this meme before, and if I remember correctly it was issuing forth from the mouth of a certain AM radio talk show host.

Hmmmm....

[ladjf]

58. Since the ratio of Americans to Troops in Iraq is 25,000 to 1,

the comparison is minuscule.

[WilliamPitt]

74. Some of the responses in this thread are astonishing

I hope you people are getting some quiet time over the next couple of days. You need it. Mainline some tryptophan or something. Chill the fuck out. Take a nap.

Jesus.

[KingFlorez]

81. delete

[Greyhound]

84. "measures that could be mandated and implemented which would save thousands of lives each and every"

Because we don't have enough people and organizations telling us how to conform to their wishes.

If we were all were locked up in our well-padded, government mandated safety cubicles 24/7 we would, in fact, be much safer. Have you had your Soma today?

Just. Leave. Us. Alone.

[Blackhatjack]

86. And just who is "us"???

Let's review briefly what government regulation has brought to the quality of life of all Americans.

Government regulation has contributed to: cleaner air, cleaner water, safer use of pesticides, safer cars - trains - planes, safer medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, creation of a minimum wage, protection of all the civil liberties provided for under the Constitution, courts open to everyone, etc.

Those who want to be totally 'free from government regulation' do not realize that the Constitution rights and privileges cannot be insured in a democracy without government regulation.

I would assume the "us" you are referring to is those who think like you that all government regulation is an infringement upon your freedom and liberty, and your ability to think freely.
If you believe this, then obviously you do not understand how a democracy works.

[Greyhound]

90. Government regulation is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil.

They are especially heinous when they are applied to the individual. Nearly all of your proposed burdens are available in several models of vehicle, and since you want them, I suggest you buy one of those vehicles, and leave the rest of us out of it.

The problem with the approach you seem to advocate is that the underlying method of application is through officially sanctioned violence, since this is the only approach that amerikans seem capable of comprehending. If we are not conducting ourselves in a manner that is acceptable to your view, you appear to believe it is OK to force your views on others.

Your argument seems to be that, since some regulations are good, all regulations are good. Do you really not see where this inevitably leads?

Your arrogance in assuming that you have any idea of how I think shows exactly where you are coming from, and I don't want any part of it. You would probably be shocked to learn of the currently non-existent regulations I do support. Try to remember that it is always better to design the system to accommodate the individual, than it is to try to force the individual to conform to the system.

[Blackhatjack]

101. There you go assuming things I did not advocate....

... and I am sorry, but you were the first to "arrogantly" "assume that you have any idea how I think"

The reason there have to be rules for 'everybody' to follow in regard to motor vehicles is that we all 'share' the same roads. If some do not feel like going along, their non-compliance will result in damage to other users of these public facilities built with public taxpayer money.

There is no shortage of ill-conceived laws that need to be modified or eliminated. However, you cannot paint all regulation by government as 'evil' and still have a democracy. Without government regulation you get 'anarchy.'

The system cannot always be designed to accomodate the individual, but that is a worthwhile goal if it can be accomplished while serving the broader needs of the public at large. For example, not everyone gets to attend the public school of their first choice, but everyone gets to attend a public school. In that example, the needs of the public at large trump the desire of the individual to have a system cater to them and their preferences.

In regard to allowing you to drive any vehicle you desire, and leave you out of minium regulation, that just is not possible. Everyone's safety depends upon minimum standards of safety, and eventually you find that most of the suggestions I made will be adopted as minimum standards of safety. The problem is that many more people will die before that happens.

[Greyhound]

103. You did, in fact advocate this mess, why else the OP?

I made no assumption of anything, I simply asked you and your kind to leave us out of your schemes, and included the logical conclusion to this line of "thought".

Any and every system certainly can be designed to accommodate the individual, but for some reason we have such an authoritarian mindset in this country, that we are blind to this. Funny you should bring up public school as your example. Think about it, a factory system, that totally ignores individuality, that has the single goal of creating useful, and most importantly, obedient, cogs to be plugged into or discarded from another system imposed on those who have no say in its creation or design, at (someone else's) whim, pretty ironic.

In your last paragraph, you again simply make a baseless declaration of impossibility without so much as a thought for how it could, in fact, be accomplished.

Lastly, and I know this is disturbing to your sense of knowing better than others, but the human mortality rate is still 100% and no matter how hard you try to make us conform to your ideas, it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Blackhatjack]

111. YOu made my point -- 43,445 will be dead. period. spin that. n/t

[Greyhound]

124. There is no attempt at spin, other than the notion you are promoting that

if we just pass enough laws and curtail enough fun in people's lives that somehow we will stop dying. 43,445 people died on the road last year, and 200,000+ died from medical malpractice and errors, and another ~1,500,000 people died in this country due to other causes, so what?

You keep ignoring and dancing around the point. We will all die eventually, none of us will be here long enough, so quit trying to tell us what we are allowed to do with that time, the decision is not yours. As I said before, you can buy a car with all those features and if it makes you feel better, then you should do it, just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

Happy Thanksgiving. :hi:

[Blackhatjack]

127. Ah, you are a fatalist, and believe nothing can or should be done to save others

Why not even try to save others when it is within your power, just because the world is full of people dying from other causes.

You cannot tell me you would walk right by a burning building with people inside you could save, just because there are a lot more people starving to death each day in Darfur. You can't be so cold hearted or fatalistic to think that way. Yet your argument taken to its logical conclusion would arrive at that most unfortunate destination.

If you save one life, that is one life saved, no matter how many other people die. And that one life saved has value, so it is worth the effort.

I don't see making cars safer and saving people's lives as "passing laws and curtailing enough fun in people's lives."

ANd what makes you think you were elected to be the spokesperson for "the rest of us?" I suspect you would have a hard time finding people to adopt your position. If you can live with so little compassion for your fellow man because it might curtail your 'fun', your life must be very bland.
I feel sorry for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Mostly bullshit.

* fatalaties per mile driven have declined steadily for decades.
* there is no correlation between high speed limits and accidents. In fact, statistics imply that there is a small, measurable, decrease in accidents due to higher speed limits. Speed doesn't kill, delta-v does. High speed traffic no longer must share the road with low speed traffic. Also, there's less motivation on the part of speeders to take the less-safe and less-patrolled backroads.
* there aren't 350 million troops in Iraq.
* you DON'T value personal freedom as much as the next guy, if you're willing to replace their judgement on acceptable personal risk with your own. You're welcome to your feelings on the matter, but take ownership of them.
* mandatory breathalizers, tire pressure sensors, stability control systems, etc. add to complexity, cost and reduce reliability. Further, they're all based on the presumption that operators are incapable of safely operating their machinery. Safety devices that get in the way of operational efficacy get bypassed.

[Blackhatjack]

87. 43,445 deaths --spin it any way you like, they are just as dead...

I am not talking about percentages or population figures. I am talking about 43,445 people who will lose their lives in the next year unless something changes. 43,445 people who will no longer be available to work for a living to support their families, share birthdays, contribute to their communities, vote in elections, and generally make unique contributions to our democratic society.

Spin it any way you want --but you cannot spin this number 43,445 which represents real people.

IF you are too selfish and inconsiderate to care because it might cost you a few bucks to save them, I hope you will explain that to their families next year. I am sure their families will thank you for prizing your 'freedom' over the lives of their loved ones.

Regarding your mention of these items:

"mandatory breathalyzers" are for repeat offenders of driving while impaired offenders. In case you did not know it, many of these individuals would not be driving at all if this system was not available to them. THey would not be working or supporting their families. And BTW driving is a privilege, not a right. If these were mandatory for repeat offenders they have the option of not driving at all, and no breathalyzer would be required.

"tire pressure sensors" are relatively inexpensive, operate in the background until notice of a deflating tire is necessary. THis is a non-operational safety addition in that it requires no manipulation or response to prevent it from affecting the operation of the vehicle.

"stability control systems" have been tested extensively and also operate in the background until the situation arises where it is needed. Automotive experts agree that this system will save lives.

THe use of these systems to make operating an automobile safer is not proof that an individual is "incapable of safely operating their machinery." It is an indication that the individual who decides to avail himself/herself of these devices in the operation of a motor vehicle has a better understanding of vehicle safety than those who just want to be left alone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. ... and by waving your magic wand, you'll end traffic fatalities.

Traffic safety is made by incremental improvement in roadbuilding, auto design and social (legal) pressure. Travel will always be the most risky of human tasks but safety is promoted by air bags, seat belts, ABS systems and improvement in tire design. On the downside, like bullet-proof vests, this added passive safety comes at some expense; individuals take less ownership of their own safety.

Most drivers don't need a better air bag, they need someone to tell 'em to leave their cellphone in the trunk.

Social pressure comes at significant cost in terms of our ability to do things for ourselves. We used to be a nation of inventors and risk-takers, but that has been lost, in part because of an unhealthy partnership between commercial self-interest and hand-wringing do-gooders.

There is attention given to the topic. Automakers aren't conspiring to make unsafe cars. In fact, they're perfectly happy to integrate the latest expensive government-required doo dad. Why do people drive a $7,000 30-year-old Mercedes? Because they often can't justify the $30,000 plus price of a new chevy.

[Blackhatjack]

104. Another mis-attributing poster .... where do they all come from?

I in fact made no such allusion to 'ending traffic fatalities' --which you would know IF you had read the OP.

I made suggestions that could 'reduce' traffic fatalities by the thousands.

Funny how people who want to have point in a debate cannot argue honestly.

The OP had nothing to do with people not taking responsibility for themselves.

There are 'cost savings' from implementing the suggestions I made, rather than just an increased cost of the purchase price of an automobile. Fewer deaths, fewer provisions of unreimbursed medical costs, etc all play a part in the cost to society to have less than safe automobiles on the road.

People do need government to lead the way on issues like child safety seats, or would you have been against too as too much government intrusion for you? Lots of children are alive today because the government decided to enact that legislation.

[Straight Shooter]

88. Recent issue of New Yorker, back page advertisement for Mercedes-Benz.

An incredible array of safety features. My reaction? Being pissed off that all these safety features are available to those who can afford them. Mercedes uses safety features as an enticement to buy their cars, they always have, and with a steep price attached.

As for the rest of us, we have to rely on our wits and hope for the best outcome if we hit a patch of ice, or encounter an out-of-control vehicle with a drunk driver coming at us on the roadway.

All life should be held in high esteem and protected wisely, with responsible measures taken to avoid death and injury whenever possible, without severely restricting what people consider to be personal freedom.

FWIW, I take no offense at including the casualties of war as a basis of comparison. Greywarrior is insightful to also point out iatrogenic deaths. We have a long way to go in this so-called pro-life society.

[w4rma]

94. So 1 of every ~6,500 people living in the U.S. vs. 1 of every ~50!!! U.S. troops serving in Iraq.

The last I checked there were only ~150,000 troops in Iraq. But ~300,000,000 people living in the US.

So 45,000 / 300,000,000 x 100% = 0.015% of the U.S. population
and 3,000 / 150,000 x 100% = 2% of all U.S. troops in Iraq

~0.015% of U.S. citizens vs. ~2% of all U.S. troops in Iraq.

Let's not even get into injuries and the extent of injuries.

[AIJ Alom]

95. You're safer driving a car than you are serving in Iraq.

Regardless both kinds of death are preventable. Increase the safety standards in vehicles, educate motorists, get poor motorists off the road and get our troops, who are clearly more at risk, out of Iraq.

[stepnw1f]

98. Rush Limbaugh? Is That You? (nt)

[file83]

99. I would have compared it to the # of Americans that have died from Terrorism.

That would make the population pool of 300 million Americans the same. It's more of an apples to apples comparison than the apples to mangos comparison of soldiers dying in Iraq.

For example, why are we as a nation fighting a War on Terrorism, which on 9/11 claimed only 10% (or so) the number of people that die EVERY YEAR on America's roads, instead of fighting a War on Car Accident Deaths?

Our freedom comes at a price, but why is our government spending $300 billion + (or whatever the figure is now) to defend our nation against isolated attacks (and even THAT is debatable - the NIE says it's making the threat of terrorism worse!), yet spends almost nothing defending Americans against CONSISTENT and PREVENTABLE deaths by creating higher safety laws & regulations concerning automobiles?

It doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Unless of course you look at who is running our country: Ex-oil exectuives, not automobile safety advocates.

[IronLionZion]

100. Ban cell phone usage while driving

and other distractions such as all those electronic gadgets people like to use.

Stricter enforcement of DUI laws...and seatbelts and so on.

Stricter driving tests and periodic retesting like every 10 years or so.

Personally, I wish I was tough enough to kick my friends out when they distract me. My biggest problem is with my stupid passengers.

And of course, more public transportation other than the damn bus. More light rail and high speed long distance rail (in certain areas like the Northeast and Southern California) would be a great idea.

[Blackhatjack]

105. I agree, especially the use of cellphones while driving....

... some jurisdictions have already taken the step to regulate this activity.

[spillthebeans]

102. 245 Troops died in the Iraq War from vehicle accidents

according to http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

I don't know how many would be still alive, if they were at home instead driving through sands or drowning in their vehicles.

[piedmont]

106. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety...

deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

--possibly Richard Jackson, inspired by Ben Franklin

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

[Blackhatjack]

109. Driving a car is not a liberty. It is a privilege. Ben Franklin would agree w/me

[piedmont]

115. Ben would think you're full of shit. nt

[Blackhatjack]

120. Boy that adds to the discussion --unsupported conclusions --nice!

Try reading a book sometime and you might have something intelligent to add to the conversation.

I will give you a hint about Ben Franklin, skip to the passage where he invented the lightning rod and how he handled that 'technological advance' during his era.

If you can read and understand that passage you will find that Ben Franklin agrees with me, and it is you that is full of something other than knowledge.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

118. Ben Franklin would poke a car with a stick while making ape noises. n/t

[Blackhatjack]

121. Compare Ben Franklin to an ape? Nice. Shows where you are coming from....

What makes you think Ben Franklin was against technological improvement and invention?

See the above response --pay attention to the suggestion that you read a book sometime.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

122. Yes. I hate Ben Franklin. on account of him being against invention.

I hate books too, not to mention - drum roll -. . . wait for it. . . . wait. . . . . little bit longer. . . .. won't be long now. . . . .. -snare-. . . .. America!

You've got me all figured out haven't you.

[Blackhatjack]

125. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you just clueless? Ben Franklin was a inventor

Ben Franklin invented many items, including the lightning rod --which he refused to patent or license. Why? Because he wanted the lightning rod to be available to everyone, including those who could not afford to pay a higher price that would have been required if he were paid royalties for patenting it.

IN all seriousness, he was a safety advocate and promoter of technology. Somehow I think you were unaware of Ben's past or you would not have made such a statement.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

130. yes, i'm being sarcastic. n/t

[Martin Eden]

108. The automobile is an extremely...

... inefficient and dangerous mode of transportation.

That we accept its high price and mortality rate is a measure of our love affair with the automobile. There's a psychological profile in there somewhere.

[benEzra]

114. The 70-mph roads have the LOWEST per-passenger-mile fatality rates...

lowering the maximum speed limit to 55 mph on the high-speed roads would NOT save a significant number of lives--and I VERY strongly oppose such a proposal. Personally, I think 70 is actually a bit low for some rural Interstates, as do 95% of the voters who drive them.

Very few of those deaths occurred in motorcycle accidents, either.

One thing I'd personally like to see would be to adopt European-style headling aiming regulations, instead of the blind-everybody-else-with-yer-lights rules we have here. Particularly for trucks and SUV's; current DOT rules allow an SUV's or pickup's "low beam" headlights to be aimed directly at the eyes of oncoming drivers and at the rear view mirrors of cars in the same lane. That can be very dangerous at night, particularly for older drivers.

And you know what would probably save the most lives of all? Four- or five-point seat belts, like race cars have--because they are immensely superior to 3-point belts, not only in frontal crashes but in side impacts. I'd love to be able to buy a car with a 4- or 5-point belt, but the DOT doesn't allow them to be fitted as standard equipment (aaargh).

[Blackhatjack]

132. You make two excellent observations and suggestions...

The blinding headlight problem and the multi-point seatbelt/restraint systems both could and should be addressed.

In fact many safety features of today's automobiles came about as a result of auto racing innovations. We can still learn a lot from them which would immediately benefit public drivers.

The number of motorcycle deaths is high compared to total motorcycle drivers/riders, and the incidence of fatalities per accident is significantly higher. It does not mean motorcycle drivers are worse drivers, it just means a larger, heavier shielded object hits a smaller, lighter unshielded vehicle, and the obvious happens. Same thing happens when a subcompact car hits a cement truck --usually bad news for the subcompact. Its a matter of physics).

THe point I made about the speed limit is that for every mile per hour a motor vehicle increases its speed, it covers ground at a faster rate and reduces the reaction time of the driver to respond to a danger on the road. A universal speed limit is not the optimum route to pursue, but reducing speed --especially in congested areas has been shown to reduce motor vehicle accidents, and save lives.

Some states have begun to experiment with speed limit signs that change the speed limit in congested areas based on traffic flow --but so far it has been few and far between.

[Clarkie1]

116. Let's be careful out there! Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving everyone! nt

[alittlelark]

117. My Father in Law tried to use this one on me

hmmmm.... what is the %age of American drivers to Iraq Oil War Soldiers?



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, driving here AT HOME seems safer that being in Iraq by 1000X.

[EdwardM]

119. Nah, its worth a dozen thousand deaths for freedom.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Cigarettes Can Kill, Let's Ban Them. Alcohol Kills; Let's Ban That Too. Hey, Sodium Ain't So Good

either; let's regulate that too while we're at it. Come to think of it, junk food clogs arteries. I think we should keep that food off our streets while we're exploring this stuff. Shit, many people die from fires every year; Fuck, guess we should build our houses and buildings out of stone only since that would definitely help. Know what? People die from doctors. Get rid of them! No more Doctors! Hey, how many murders a year? Let's ban guns and all forms of sharp objects. Butter knives for now on only! I mean it might take a bit more effort, but you can still cut a steak with a butter knife if you try hard enough. We gotta do what we can right? Let's go on and on and on and on about all the things we need to protect ourselves from ok? 1984 was spot on!

:sarcasm:

[Blackhatjack]

129. Well I guess your solution is to curse them all and try not to save anyone?

You cannot stay on topic.

I guess you are a fatalist since everything in the world will kill you, and your position would be why try to change anything for the better, right?

Let's see if I can play your game -- global warming is difficult to fix, so let's not try. Cancer is hard to cure, so let's not try. Education requires effort, so let's not try.

Is that not your point?

If you cannot logically debate the topic being discussed, you would be better off not exhibiting that inability by showing your ineptness to all of the world.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. With All Due Respect, I Did Logically Debate It.

In my opinion over-legislating things for sake of personal safety while impeding on a person's right to self choice is a dangerous game that leads straight to a 1984 world.

I've always found laws requiring use of a seat belt to be completely ludicrous. That shouldn't be the government's decision to force me into such a thing. It's none of their damn business. Now I do wear a seatbelt, but I do so out of personal choice; not out of mandate. Forcing those who ride motorcycles to wear a helmet is the same thing. It's their choice. If they want to be foolish enough to ride without one that's their business. The government should not legislate how I choose to enact my own personal safety.

As far as your strawman arguments go, no, that wasn't my point at all. Global warming affects everyone and everything, not just my own personal being. Cancer affects anyone afflicted with it, not just my own personal being (if I had it). The education take effort argument is so silly it didn't even fit into the same category as your other false expansions to begin with, so I have no comment on it.

[Blackhatjack]

135. OK now I will address your argument point by point...

Take a guess how many safety innovations have been added to products and services you use every day, not because the manufacturer thought they were a good idea --but because the government forced them to be added.

You say you wear a seat belt out of personal choice. Good for you. You may be around to debate next week because of that very wise decision. However, if the government had not mandated seatbelts be included in every automobile sold in the US, you would not necessarily have that choice to make. Because of government regulation you do.

You say the government should not legislate how you choose to enact your own personal safety. The government gets a say because if you do something stupid and put yourself in peril, it is usually a government resource that comes to your rescue. For example, hikes that fall down cliffs, boaters that capsize, people who canoe in flood waters, etc. When people do things that injure themselves, the government provides unreimbursed medical care to them and pays the cost if they cannot pay. Plus the rescuers lives are placed in jeopardy, so the government gets a say in this.

Cancer affects everyone, not just the person afflicted. Just as global warming does. And so does car safety, since every dollar paid to treat accident victims is a dollar that will not be available to fund medical research, counter global warming, fund education, etc.

If you had seen pictures of people in accidents who do not wear seat belts like I have, the decision to wear one would be easy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

137. I Find So Much Flaw In A Multitude Of Your Declerations Above That I've Chosen To

not even waste my time at this late hour even acknowledging them. I'm extremely confident in my fellow DU'ers to be able to find the glaring faults of premise themselves without my having to explicitly reply to them.

But holy misguided. Sheesh.

Nite now. :hi:

[Blackhatjack]

138. Retirement and reevaluation of your position is wise....

... we do not have to agree to have a reasoned and well supported debate. When you wish to reengage on this topic, I will be available.
Gnite to you.

[dysfunctional press]

148. mandatory seat belt laws-

the reason we have mandatory seat belt laws is not out of concern for the citizenry- congress was going to mandate automatic restraint(seatbelts) in cars- BUT, auto manufacturers didn't want to- so they convinced congress not to require the systems if enough states passed mandatory seat belt laws, and then went about lobbying for the changes to the laws in all states.

[sweetheart]

133. auto-detroit does its part...

...for the green overpopulation lobby.

A new car designed for islamic persons, called the 'magic bus' can kill all its occupants
in even the most minor accident earning certifications from republicans and KKK representatives
everywhere for use in metro areas and areas with majority democratic voters. *coors family archives ;-)
In applications for the carbon reduction certificates for carbon-footprints saved, detroit has been awarded the
thalium award at its centennial moral dinner... better than jonestown, twice the injury, half
the insult.

[BenDavid]

134. Brit Hume tried this

back years ago and seemed like Hume tried to claim that the current death rate in Iraq was no big deal since Californians average 6.6 murders per day, while soldiers in Iraq are averaging 1.7 deaths per day (please note: this was around September 2003). The best way I can explain is: say there are 150,000 troops in Iraq and more than 34.5 million that live in California. So if we had as many troops in Iraq as they do in California and a comparable number were being killed, we would see 385 soldiers deaths per day, as opposed to the 6.6 murders per day in California.

[Blackhatjack]

136. So forget the ratios, do individual lives still matter to us? Are they valuable?

If you could save a life would you? Or would you say there are far more people in the world dying than this one person, so I won't try.

43,445 families lost a loved one. Should one family be denied the saving of their loved one simply because the ratios don't add up?

And by the way, Brit Hume does not get to own any topic he tries to use for political gain.
Why let rightwingers 'own' and control any topic just because they try to subvert it for their own use.

[Clarkie1]

139. A am absolutely disgusted by the stupid, partisan responses to the OP.

The OP made an excellent point about traffic accidents in the U.S., which is particulary relevant as we enter the holiday season when more of these tragic deaths occur, yet is seems the only way some people can think to respond turning it to a thread about Iraq.

The OP is not about Iraq! Sometimes this place is like Alice in Wonderland...

[Blackhatjack]

140. Thankyou for putting it succinctly...

I have worked in this area for over 20 years and thought I would bring an important issue to everyone's attention at a time and place where we might make a difference in saving lives. But it took almost no time at all for it to become misconstrued as a rightwing propaganda incited political conspiracy.

I have seen the results of auto accidents, and have seen the hurting families who have loved ones seriously injured and/or killed. You cannot see this kind of carnage and not feel that something needs to be done to save more victims from this fate.

Those who posted to this thread who are so staunchly protectionist when it comes to the government regulating any kind of conduct for the public good have most likely not seen this kind of tragedy up close and personal. I am sorry but if laws that prevent unsafe actions will save lives, I am all for them. After all, these protectionist posters did not build the highways themselves, they are public venues built with public taxpayer funds, for use by everyone. And their actions impact everyone else who shares the use of these public facilities.

Where one man's 'freedom' ends often is where the 'freedom and well-being' of others begins.

[Blackhatjack]

141. We Had Massive Pileup of Motorcycles Today --2 Dead, 8 injured...

... and the death toll would have been much higher if North Carolina did not require motorcyclists to wear helmets.

We don't know all the details yet, but just another example of the death that occurs on a regular basis on our highways. We are thankful the death toll was not higher.

If these riders were given the choice of whether to wear helmets, those opting not to do so involved in this accident would likely be dead as well.

[Mr_Spock]

143. Imperfect people drive cars

These imperfect people will crash them. It's not possible to idiot proof the world so that idiots won't get killed.

I'd say that 90% of the suggested solutions are wholly impractical and the inflated rhetoric and comparisons really don't serve you well. I get it, but there are very few practical actions contained in that entire post.

[uppityperson]

144. Is this topic to minimize impact of dead soldiers or make a statement about car deaths?

IF it is to miminize the number of military and/or civilians who have died in the Iraq invasion/occupation, I have no further use of this.

IF it is to point out the fact that a whole shitload of people die every yr from automobile accidents and injuries, then yes. Having so many die 1 by 1 for some reason is not as horrific as having a whole bunch die together, for some reason. Motorcycle helmets: have seen stats showing less head injuries ANd stats showing more neck injuries with helmets. Seatbelts should be mandatory and ticketed with high fines. Why should I have to pay for your stupidity, your medical care if you don't wear one? ABS yes. Automatic tire pressure sensors I haven't heard of but would leave this one off the list as it seems people should check their air pressure and I don't know that it contributes so much to accidents/deaths. Sleep sensor and rear view cameras, don't know about either. Yes, too many people die on the roads from preventable causes and yes, we can multitask (take care of getting the hell out of Iraq and working on domestic health and safety issues).

Perhaps the best thing for you to have done is NOT keep referring people to post #9 as there is a lot to read through here, but to have edited your original post to put what you put in #9 there, for the sake of clear communication.

[SoCalDem]

146. Wow.. Cato/AEI/Heritage talking point # 143

and in other studies:

eggs cost 2.30 a dozen
goats can make nice pets
raising children is expensive

[Judi Lynn]

149. The car accidents are not political, are not chosen.

As posters have tried to point out, the war was created not only as a scheme from a power-hungry group of a-holes, it should have been declined the moment someone suggested it. Evil in inception, and dead wrong in administration.

The car wrecks should never happen, but they were not called into being by a political whim/slimey plot/fallacious choice.

You're preaching to the wrong message board, anyway. Democrats ARE the party of change, of progress. The right-wing, aligning itself with greed and acquisition above everything ELSE, fights progress for the larger community as if it were death itself. Progress which benefits OTHERS without serving self first, far above and far more copiously than everyone else, is anathema for Republicans.

Democrats are responsible for ALL the helpful steps forward in this country. It comes naturally.