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/
