Skip to comments.Highway deaths fall to lowest level since 1949
Posted on 03/31/2011 10:16:13 PM PDT by quantim
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Highway deaths have plummeted to their lowest levels in more than 60 years, helped by more people wearing seat belts, better safety equipment in cars and efforts to curb drunken driving.
The Transportation Department estimated Friday that 32,788 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2010, a decrease of about 3 percent from 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
And less driving.
The left will say it is from an increase in the use of public transportation.
...or that the roads are so bad they’re like traveling over miles and miles of speed bumps. One cannot GO over 40 mph on many of the roads in Michigan.
This afternoon at an intersection close to home..an “organ donor” plastered a Mercedes with his bike and body.
The most interesting part was that the city of San Diego still has enough money to send in a special hazmat crew..complete with white suits to clean up the blood and brains. Plus a “Critical Incident Counselor” to ‘on the spot’ counsel bystanders who witnessed the mess. All these efforts and money must be leading to lower traffic deaths..but I suspect with gas prices going up more people will hit the road on their motor bikes and become roadkill.
Wasn’t there a story ~a year ago where some MI roads were getting topped off with gravel instead of re-paved with asphalt to save money?
“Of course AP article does not mention the price of gas in a relentless recession spurred by liberal policies.
And less driving.”
Right. And less jobs. Rush hour traffic in my area seems to have thinned out.
Hmmm...didn't see the story, BUT there are roads here, not sure what they are called, not gravel, but not exactly paved. They are holding up VERY well. Some of our local roads should be redone to be like those.
Some of the other roads, at least in my county, are concrete and those are turning into rubble--dangerous rubble. The holes can swallow a whole car wheel. People are going to get hurt. (actually someone probably already died, but they repaired the road so fast there was no evidence)
Regardless of the statistics, real or manipulated, the most important question is do we want the government to tell us how to take care of ourselves or do we want to decide for ourselves.
Seat belts? It is obvious that at times wearing them saves someone’s life. Yet, should that be a choice or a government mandate?
Air bags? A free choice of whether or not to buy them or a government mandate?
Car insurance? A free choice or a government mandate? There are two main arguments for a government mandate. 1) To protect yourself from the uninsured by mandating that ALL must be insured. The fallacy of that is that uninsured motorist insurance is always available. 2) All must be insured so that the costs are spread evenly. Let the market decide the price. If it is too high for your personal needs, then take the risk. If not, then pay.
The examples could go on forever. The choice is freedom or government control. Already they are telling us whether we can smoke, when and where we can exercise our 2nd amendment rights, what we can eat, and many other things. How much government control are we willing to accept?
Oh, and the fact there are so many fewer people driving to jobs.
Drunkenness is surely the cause of some truly gruesome wrecks.
But for the most part those tested "drunk" in accidents are not the cause of said accident.
I'd much prefer a law against stupid and cell phones.
And for what it's worth, I know a bunch of cops...some who say "moderate" drunks are safer on the road than the average driver. They drive far more cautiously.
It's the chronic 0.25 - 0.3 drunk that's dangerous. The 5 drinks over two hours with dinner, full grown man at 0.15 is not a problem.
Until he gets busted.
As I think about these questions I think about kids.
Not sure what side I’m on.
Should the law require that we put minors in our car in car sets/seat belts?
It’s one thing to increase the odds that I’ll die; another to increase the odds my kid will.
I don’t support the mandate for competent adults, though.
That's a two-fer. Cell phone users are stupid drivers.
Saw a great billboard in Canada back in the 70’s.
“If you love your kids, Belt them.”
Get the meaning, but it’s still good.
If we can get gas prices up to 8 or 9 bucks and the unemployment rate up to 35% I bet we can cut traffic fatalities to their lowest level since 1929 ...
“Wasnt there a story ~a year ago where some MI roads were getting topped off with gravel instead of re-paved with asphalt to save money?”
Yep, I clearly remember that story. It provided a very slight visual hint about our impeding crash to a Third World lifestyle...it was quite scary and true.
“And for what it’s worth, I know a bunch of cops...some who say “moderate” drunks are safer on the road than the average driver. They drive far more cautiously”
Yeah right. I heard the same thing about stoners. Pass.
@ BobL - Right, exactly!
@ madison10 - Concrete roads in the northern US? A real genius must designed that.
“I’d much prefer a law against stupid...”
Example: the chick who’s got a butt in one hand and the mascara wand in the other - must be steering with her knees.
Example: the guy shaving and channel surfing the radio while he drives. Again, how are you steering?
The roads have seams about every four feet, maybe less, so they aren't much different than long sidewalks.
If you don’t like paying tolls and taxes for asphalting roads every few years concrete is the way to go. CT had some concrete highways put in during the Depression that were still holding up well in the ‘80s. Don’t know if they’re still there though.
You make an excellent point about the kids. Yet, it all boils down to whether or not you want the government to be the parent.
Right, but you typically don’t drive on sidewalks. It doesn’t seem like a practical solution in a cold climate.
I sense a government worker/union mentality of “don’t kill the job” being in play.
With the higher price of gas more people will start riding motorcycles.
I know I will, my new cruiser I bought several years ago has been mostly for recreational riding but with its 50 mpg capability I will be riding it more often.
“Yet, it all boils down to whether or not you want the government to be the parent.”
There is a continuum, there.
Do I want the government to tell me whether my kids can have mac and cheese, study Spanish instead of German, cut their hair or let it grow?
Do I want the government to tell me I can’t abuse my kids, terrorize them, take them with me climbing Mt. Everest as infants, send them on solo sailing trips when they are ten?
Because children are people, are citizens, and have a right to life; and because parents have the obligation to provide for and protect them to a certain degree;
the government has a role.
The debate is, how much of a role? I am a supporter of parental rights, but I do think the state has some responsibility to protect children from neglect and abuse.
I agree about the child abuse thing but even that gets into grey areas of government abuse. I am not for anarchy but I think sometimes government assumes too much authority and we allow them to because it sounds like a good thing. As my tagline says, not everything that needs, or should be done, should be done by the government. Most of the time personal responsibility is the answer. Yet, let one person fail in that responsibility and the temptation is to bring Big Brother in to police everybody.
I think we are in agreement on that. It is a tough judgement call. I think personal responsibility is paramount; however, minor children must be reasonably protected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.