>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 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
