http://www.msnbc.ms­n.com/id/7589256/>

Overall, 42,800 people died on the nation’s highways in 2004, up from> 42,643 in 2003.>

At the same time, people drove more miles, so the fatality rate> dropped a bit, from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled> in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. That’s the lowest since records were> first kept in 1966, NHTSA said.>

Alcohol-related fatalities slid 2.1 percent last year, to 16,654 in> 2004.

Reporting the mixed results, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta> said the nation was “in the midst of a national epidemic”

and urged motorists to buckle up.

http://www.msnbc.ms­n.com/id/7589256/>

2004 traffic death rate lowest ever recorded> But it's still a 'national epidemic,' Mineta saysThe Associated Press>

Updated: 1:45 p.m. ET April 21, 2005WASHINGTON ->

The rate dropped even as the total number of traffic deaths inched up> because more drivers were on the road, the National Highway Traffic> Safety Administration said.

more miles) and last but not least *fifty-six percent* of people killed> were not wearing seat belts, which are undoubtedly installed on 95% or> more of the vehicles on the road, we still have an "epidemic" on our> hands.>

Sounds like typical NHTSA hysteria and fear mongering to me.>

nate>

How about an epidemic of dumb fucks who are to stupid to drive?> Drivers License is to easy in America> Also, reckless driving or drunk driving should be a $5000 fine> PERIOD> <snip>>

So in other words, even though fatalities per VMT *dropped* for yet> another year in a row *yawn* and drunk driving fatalities were also> down, and the only category in which there was an increase was

more of the vehicles on the road, we still have an "epidemic" on our> hands.>

Sounds like typical NHTSA hysteria and fear mongering to me.>

nate

N8N wrote:>

Press>

overall>

killed>

I don't care about VMT.

Incidents per VMT are dropping largely because> people are driving longer and longer.>

An alcoholic might just as easily argue that his fuckup per liter of> alcohol rate is going down if his rate of alcohol consumption increases> faster than his rate of fuckups.

N8N wrote:>> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>> > He says the answer is safety belts but i say stop the criminal>> > coddling and lock up speeders and drunk drivers.>> >

I don't care about VMT. Incidents per VMT are dropping largely because>people are driving longer and longer.

They also don't want to talk about> overall crash numbers, just fatality rates.

And crash rates (they've been going down as well). Have you ever> wondered why most statistics are discussed in terms of rates (e.g.,> birth rate) rather than absolute numbers?

When you figure that:>

a) Seatbelts have been mandated since the late '60s> b) Lap belts can be installed in any car sold in the US since 1962 without > any modifications to the car whatsoever - it was the law - and a set of > new lap belts with hardware for two seats can be had in a variety of > colors for under $50

c) I am not aware of any organization that judges classic cars that will > deduct points for seatbelts installed "in a workmanlike manner" or words > to that effect> d) the percentage of cars still on the road that didn't come with modern, > 3-point belts has to be vanishingly small at this point in time> e) seatbelt use rates in most locales have been estimated at significantly > higher than 44%

it is obvious that a good number of those fatalities are caused by the > stupidity of the people that were killed. Tragic, yes, but stupidity > hasn't been outlawed yet. Doesn't seem like anything I need to get worked > up over.

2003: 42,643 fatals/196 million licensed drivers (FHWA cite)>

this is 1 crash fatality per 4596 licensed drivers>

2004: 42,800 fatals/197 million licensed drivers (estimated)>

this is 1 crash fatality per 4602 licensed drivers>

Still a small rate decline from 2003 to 2004, and in 2004 those> licensed drivers exposed themselves to traffic a little more than they> did in 2003. Fairly stable rate, I'd say, even though the number is> tragic for all of us, especially those who have lost friends or family> in a crash.

It makes much more sense to discuss per capita rates than VMT or PMT> rates.

Arif Khokar wrote:>

It makes much more sense to discuss per capita rates than VMT or PMT> rates. The decrease in fatalities per VMT and PMT reflect more on> people commuting greater distances than an increase in safety.>

Until is acknowledge as a problem here in the US, as serious as> terrorism or obesity, people will continue to dismiss driving deaths and> injuries as an "acceptable risk". Just look at how its reported on TV,> people have become numb to crashes.>

Alot of European countries take traffic fatalities/crashes more seriously> than the US. Sweden has a national goal of "zero fatalities". It's> probably more a mission statement than an achieveable goal of course, but it> does show national priorities. With our "war on drugs" and "war on> terrorism", why have we never had a "war on road deaths", which kill more> people than drugs or terrorism ever thought about?>

Unlike LBMHB, I think the onus isn't on the drivers exclusively.

Sure, US> drivers aren't the greatest, but drunk driving is down, and I think> speeding, while a problem,

is not the only cause- nor is 55 mph a realistic> speed limit in this day and age (for one thing, many cars probably do as> well at 60 mph in terms of safety and fuel economy as many cars 20-30 years> ago did at 55- when they were all shaped like boxes and at most had> collapsable steering colums). Lets look at something else. The average> car in the US is over 7 years old, many over 10 years old. Many of these> cars are not the safest. Even never cars, like smaller late 90's cars, are> not as safe as some cars you can buy today. Because of our poor economy> coupled with limited savings (low net worth), many people cannot afford> better cars, and because of inferior US Federal government testing> (particularly rollover and side impact), people still buy 2004-2006 cars> with marginal safety that have 4 or 5 star ratings.>

http://www.msnbc.ms­n.com/id/7589256/>

2004 traffic death rate lowest ever recorded> But it's still a 'national epidemic,' Mineta saysThe Associated Press>

Updated: 1:45 p.m. ET April 21, 2005WASHINGTON ->

The rate dropped even as the total number of traffic deaths inched up> because more drivers were on the road, the National Highway Traffic> Safety Administration said.>

Overall, 42,800 people died on the nation’s highways in 2004, up from> 42,643 in 2003.>

At the same time, people drove more miles, so the fatality rate> dropped a bit, from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled> in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. That’s the lowest since records were> first kept in 1966, NHTSA said.>

Alcohol-related fatalities slid 2.1 percent last year, to 16,654 in> 2004.>

Reporting the mixed results, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta> said the nation was “in the midst of a national epidemic” and urged> motorists to buckle up.>

“If this many people were to die from any one disease in a single> year, Americans would demand a vaccine,” Mineta said. “The irony is we> already have the best vaccine available to reduce the death toll on> our highways — safety belts.”>

Fifty-six percent of those killed weren’t wearing seat belts, a rate> unchanged from 2003.>

Deaths of drivers and passengers in sport utility vehicle rose 4.9> percent, though it was not clear how many more SUVs were on the road> last year.>

The number of deaths dropped 2.4 percent for people in passenger cars> and fell 2 percent for pickup trucks.>

In 2004, there were more vehicles registered — 235.4 million — and> they drove more miles — 2.92 trillion.>

Fatal crashes involving drivers between the ages of 16 to 20 increased> slightly, from 7,353 in 2003 to 7,405.>

The figures predicted the seventh straight increase for motorcycle> fatalities. In 2004, 3,927 motorcyclists died, an increase of 7.3> percent over 2003.>

The data released Thursday are considered projections. NHTSA plans to> release final 2004 fatality figures in August. NHTSA collects crash> statistics from all 50 states.>

http://www.msnbc.ms­n.com/id/7589256/

2004 traffic death rate lowest ever recorded> But it's still a 'national epidemic,' Mineta saysThe Associated Press

Sounds like typical NHTSA hysteria and fear mongering to me.

http://www.msnbc.ms­n.com/id/7589256/>

2004 traffic death rate lowest ever recorded> But it's still a 'national epidemic,' Mineta saysThe Associated Press>

Updated: 1:45 p.m. ET April 21, 2005WASHINGTON ->

The rate dropped even as the total number of traffic deaths inched up> because more drivers were on the road, the National Highway Traffic> Safety Administration said.>

Overall, 42,800 people died on the nation's highways in 2004, up

At the same time, people drove more miles, so the fatality rate> dropped a bit, from 1.48 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles

Alcohol-related fatalities slid 2.1 percent last year, to 16,654 in> 2004.>

Reporting the mixed results, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta> said the nation was "in the midst of a national epidemic" and

"If this many people were to die from any one disease in a single> year, Americans would demand a vaccine," Mineta said. "The irony

Fifty-six percent of those killed weren't wearing seat belts, a

Deaths of drivers and passengers in sport utility vehicle rose 4.9> percent, though it was not clear how many more SUVs were on the road> last year.>

The number of deaths dropped 2.4 percent for people in passenger cars> and fell 2 percent for pickup trucks.>

In 2004, there were more vehicles registered - 235.4 million -

they drove more miles - 2.92 trillion.>

Fatal crashes involving drivers between the ages of 16 to 20

The figures predicted the seventh straight increase for motorcycle> fatalities. In 2004, 3,927 motorcyclists died, an increase of 7.3> percent over 2003.>

The data released Thursday are considered projections. NHTSA plans to> release final 2004 fatality figures in August. NHTSA collects crash> statistics from all 50 states.

However, I would also expect drivers to obey speed limits on> non-interstates, which they most certainly do not.

Not to mention safer roads and vehicles, better and faster medical>treatment. Speeders won't admit it, but those improvements since the>70's have a lot to do with the lower fatality rate on US highways>despite higher and higher speeds. They also don't want to talk about>overall crash numbers, just fatality rates.

Well, that much is true, sort of. Since the *rate* of decrease of>deaths has remained basically constant, it's a fairly safe assumption>that the speed limit has little to no bearing on death rate, and>therefore since higher speeds allow more efficient travel that they>should be allowed until such time as it is proven that they are>actually detrimental to safety.

Problem is, cars haven't gotten significantly safer over the last 10 >years. Sure, we've tacked on some extra airbags but overall they're >pretty much the same (although there does seem to be a trend towards >more performance lately, which is a Good Thing.) Or to put it another >way, a 10 year old car, in terms of crash survivability, was already >really freaking good, a new car is just icing. I'd prefer to see more >cars that have a fighting chance of avoiding a crash in the first place, >but we seem to not worry about that here in the US for some reason.

I think in the vast majority of cases where there is a fatal crash, the >blame can be squarely placed on the driver, either for choosing to drink >too much, not buckling up, and/or not paying attention to his driving. >It is a rare crash that wasn't preventable.

John Lansford wrote:>

I can't speak for everyone else, but, contrary to what you may believe, >I don't really speed on surface streets. If it's posted at 35, I go >around 35. If it's posted at 25, I go around 25.

You're probably one of those drivers that I would pass at a 10+ mph >differential when you're driving 65 mph on the highway, but when we come >up upon some semi dense fog, you'll pass me at a 20+ mph differential >after I slow down and you do not.

Alot of European countries take traffic fatalities/crashes more seriously>than the US. Sweden has a national goal of "zero fatalities".

It's probably more a mission statement than an achieveable goal of>course, but it does show national priorities. With our "war on>drugs" and "war on terrorism", why have we never had a "war on road>deaths", which kill more people than drugs or terrorism ever thought about?

It certainly couldn't be that 90% of posted highway limits (and many on>rural and secondary roads as well) are at least 10-20 MPH below average>free-flowin­g travel speeds, could it?>

Well, that is certainly your cookbook answer for it, isn't it?>

I look at speed limits in a more case by case situation, instead of> just throwing out such wide statements as your's above. Way too> general, ignoring local conditions that may influence the need for a> lower speed other than basic highway geometry.>

Oh, right. Maybe you haven't, but there've been plenty of speeders> here who claim that since the speed limits have been raised and deaths> have gone down, that by itself is justification to keep raising them.

John Lansford wrote:>> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>>

I'm not saying *I* do it - I'm saying that *many* drivers do it.

When *most* speed limits are underposted, drivers lose their respect>for speed limits in general - even the ones that are correctly posted.>After all, if every speed limit sign that you pass every day is, say,>15 MPH slower than everyone safely travels every day, and you take a>new road and see a speed limit sign, are you automatically going to>assume it's valid?

Most people don't think like that. A *good* driver>will be aware, assess the road conditions, hazards, etc. and choose his>speed accordingly. A lazy driver will look at the speed limit sign and>automatically tack on a mental 15 MPH. In neither case does the speed>limit sign provide a reliable indication of safe upper bound speed.>

This is why I feel that many speed limits need to be *raised,* not that>faster travel speeds are necessarily desirable (or even will occur) but>we need to bring some meaning back to them so that they provide useful>information for drivers rather than simply being an arbitrary speed>above which you get to pay a fine if a cop decides to pull you over.

In article <raph6119l3jkmcfpc2­21vu3p5kpoijj5d8@4ax­.com>, John Lansford wrote:>

Ok, let's make an assumption people obey underposted speed limits for >the sake of arguement.* As bicyclist I like travel speeds to be 35mph and >lower. Now, given the reductions in crash severity and everything else, >why can't all speed limits be 35mph or lower? Including limited access >highways? >

They still believe improvements in >cars stopped back in the 60's.

Everything with you guys is "sloth drivers". I guess it doesn't matter>than a major traffic engineer group found that a large part of bad traffic>in the US is due to poorly implemented or nonexistant stoplight monitoring>and updating? They estimated the US could cut their gasoline consumption>by ten percent just by improving stoplights at intersections.

Alot of drivers speeding I see don't get anywhere faster than I do. They>get stopped at the same stoplights that I do. Sometimes they even get>stopped well before I do because they are driving so fast (ie, they might>have actually made the green light if they were driving slower).>Therefore,­ stoplights are the real limitation, not my driving style.>

I can design a road that will force you to drive a particular speed> limit, but our standards have so many safety factors built into them> that it is currently difficult to do so. Those safety factors only> take into account environmental factors, however, not such things as> traffic density and development along the route which can require a> lower speed than what a road is designed for, nor do they take into> account varying vehicular conditions or driver abilities. Certain> features in a design are set to a particular speed, such as> accel/decel lengths, clear recovery zones, guardrail types and> shoulder treatments, which would be unsafe at higher speeds.

John Lansford wrote:>> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>>

<big time snip>>

John - you forgot one of the most important points - There's "Design>Speed", and then there's the "Posted Speed".

As you are well aware,>the design speed will always be about 5 or 10 mph higher than the>posted speed,

to allow for drivers who do go above the speed limit a>little bit. Because of this requirement, it automatically sets speed>limits too low, and encourages speeding.

I guess it doesn't matter>than a major traffic engineer group found that a large part of bad traffic>in the US is due to poorly implemented or nonexistant stoplight monitoring>and updating? They estimated the US could cut their gasoline consumption>by ten percent just by improving stoplights at intersections.

Alot of drivers speeding I see don't get anywhere faster than I do. They>get stopped at the same stoplights that I do.