Posted on 10/01/2015 1:54:24 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Traffic fatalities in the United States have been plummeting for years, a major victory for regulation (strict drunken driving laws have helped) and auto innovation (we have safer cars). But that progress obscures a surprising type of inequality: The most disadvantaged are more likely — and have grown even more likely over time — to die in car crashes than people who are well-off.
New research by Sam Harper, Thomas J. Charters and Erin C. Strumpf, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, finds that improvements in road safety since the 1990s haven't been evenly shared. The biggest declines in fatalities have occurred among the most educated. As for people 25 and older with less than a high school diploma, fatality rates have actually increased over time, bucking the national trend.
The underlying issue here is not that a college degree makes you a better driver. Rather, the least-educated tend to live with a lot of other conditions that can make getting around more dangerous. They own cars that are older and have lower crash-test ratings. Those with less education are also likely to earn less and to have the money for fancy safety features such as side airbags, automatic warnings and rear cameras.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
obviously this is enemy agit-prop... to prepare the few remaining American workers for Obama’s next Welfare give=away program ... he plans to give them all nice new safe-to-drive Mercedes Benzs.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB1YX0kwrYk
The solution is simple. Obama can use his “pen and his phone” to issue an executive order requiring greater numbers of the well-educated and wealthy to die in car crashes...
“(C. Edmund Wright says I’m a moron)”
Good club to be in!
And this is because most of the safety “innovations” out there add to the cost of the car, pushing even typical family sedans out of the reach of the poor. The poor are therefore stuck with the hobbes’ choice of buying a (less safe) used car, or a little CAFE-cheater rollerskate; notice these cars are usually the ones with the biggest “rebates” and discounts, and tend to be marketed to lower income brackets with less sophisticated advertising using hiphop music and “urban” elements.
Those with more education, and therefore more money, can afford safer, more advanced cars. Additionally, those with more education/income tend to take better care of their vehicles, doing regular maintenance and replacing tires on schedule. Lower-income people either can’t afford the maintenance, or don’t know that they are supposed to perform it.
No doubt the government solution will be more of our tax dollars to provide subsidies to the automakers so they can afford to put their safety tech in cheaper cars, and subsidies to the lower income brackets so they can “afford” better cars.
IMHO, *all* safety items ought to be options, so we can decide how protected we want to be, just as health “insurance” needs to go back to being a (relatively) free market. Want better healthcare, a nicer car, better house? F’ing work for it like the rest of us. Get an education (no excuse these days; the gov all but gives it away), develop a work ethic, and apply yourself.
Looking at the abstract, it looks like the “study” did not control for such parameters as whether the “disadvantaged” wore their seat belts less often, were more likely to drive drug or stoned, or don’t read English because they are illegal aliens.
Cars-For-Losers.............................
...and they can start with the poor.
It’ll be for their own good, of course.
I have never had a rear camera and never felt endangered by the lack of one.
LOLOL I’m having fun with it.
Looking at the abstract, it looks like the “study” did not control for such parameters as whether the “disadvantaged” wore their seat belts less often, were more likely to have a greater number of traffic citations, were more likely to drive drunk or stoned, or didn’t read English because they are illegal aliens.
This outrage demands immediate federal government intervention, even if it costs trillions of dollars. Or we can try to work it out privately by asking for an offsetting number of higher educated and older people to voluntarily die in car crashes to even things out.
Either way, we cannot tolerate inequality in car crash deaths.
No, cash for clunkers was designed to make new cars cheaper for people who could already afford them and used cars more expensive for the poor.
Well the car companies have to meet a "fleet average" govt fuel mileage standard.
BUT
Americans actually like to drive large cars and trucks, and since most of the USA doesn't look like Europe or New York City, driving a large vehicle is actually enjoyable.
Thus the need to make small ones relatively incentivized.
Good grief!
Life is unfair we all know.
Life is often hard for all - but harder for those...
who are proud
who will not learn from the mistakes/wisdom of others
who are lazy
who are irresponsible
who despise authority
who are thankless, ungrateful, and loveless
I could go on but you get the point.
“Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” - Jesus
How many accept that offer to endure a fallen world and have God’s peace and rest now no matter their struggle? I don’t know, but I have the feeling there are fewer liberals in that number.
Liberals real problem is that they are mad at God. Fortunately, they’ll get their chance to tell Him.
Good grief!
Life is unfair we all know.
Life is often hard for all - but harder for those...
who are proud
who will not learn from the mistakes/wisdom of others
who are lazy
who are irresponsible
who despise authority
who are thankless, ungrateful, and loveless
I could go on but you get the point.
“Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” - Jesus
How many accept that offer to endure a fallen world and have God’s peace and rest now no matter their struggle? I don’t know, but I have the feeling there are fewer liberals in that number.
Liberals real problem is that they are mad at God. Fortunately, they’ll get their chance to tell Him.
“Seat belts help a LOT too...my experience is the crappier the vehicle, the less likely you’ll see the driver wearing belts.”
The crappier the vehicle, the less likely I’m going to drive or park near it. ;-)
Well, then! Obama needs to buy new cars for all those poor folks.
so they have a human right to a brand new govt paid car.
They also take poorer care of their vehicles. Prefer to spend their money on more fun and self-gratifying things than boring, dull car maintenance needs.
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.