I thank Charles Gimon for taking the time to find out where information was available for comparing deaths from motor vehicles to homicides. I looked at it myself and found it interesting that for the same period, St. Paul had 17 deaths from motor vehicle accidents and 26 from homicides. If I recall correctly, St. Paul's population is about 250,000 or 65% as large as Minneapolis' population. So why does St. Paul have only half as many deaths from MVAs as Minneapolis, which had 32? The homicide number for St. Paul falls right about in line with what would be expected compared to Minneapolis' 37 homicides in 2000.
I also appreciate Charles pointing out that deaths from MVAs really concentrate among younger folks. Table 5 of the report really spells it out. In Minnesota, MVAs are the leading cause of death for folks aged 1-34. It's the second leading cause of death for folks aged 35-49 and the third leading cause of death for folks aged 50-64. If you manage to live longer than that without getting hit by a car, you probably don't have to worry about it as much since MVAs fall out of the top five leading causes of death for people aged 65 and older. I also looked around the Department of Public Safety web site and on the Office of Traffic Safety page (http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/crashdata/default.asp) you can download a MS Word document that details the total economic impact to Minnesota cities with populations of 2,500 or more for all traffic fatalities and injuries. The impact to Minneapolis for 2001 was $95,801,600 of which $19,400,000 was due to fatalities and the rest to varying degrees of injury. Unfortunately, the report does not state how these impacts were calculated. However, there is a link to a federal report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (of the US DOT), which discusses economic impacts. The cost components they use include productivity losses, property damage, medical costs, rehabilitation costs, travel delay, legal and court costs, emergency services (such as medical, police, and fire services), insurance administration costs, and the costs to employers. I would presume that the Department of Public Safety follows a similar model. I suppose now we need to concern ourselves with whether we might further damage our economy by promoting traffic safety since safer driving would hurt business for a lot of lawyers, auto mechanics and funeral homes, huh? Also, I'd like to thank Tim Connelly for reminding us of the "photo-cop" bill that was proposed in the House a couple years ago. I'm proud to say that the sponsor was actually my state representative, Len Biernat (59A) and I hope he will consider reintroducing it in January, even though he was unable to get a committee hearing for it last time due to opposition from the committee chairs. Unlike Walt Cygan, I am unconcerned with any threat to my civil liberties from such cameras because I try my best to drive safely. Given that I'm only 30 years old, I've got a whole lot of years ahead of me where I apparently need to worry more about some nut running me down in the street. Perhaps our mayor and city council might lobby in favor of such legislation if they realize that the revenue from the photo-cop cameras could be directed to the MPD, which would free up general Minneapolis revenue for other programs that are facing cuts. With all the stories we've heard about red-light runners in south Minneapolis, this should be a real cash cow! Maybe we could even get a property tax cut down the road... Mark Snyder Windom Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
