Can I hide a part of the text by a "More..." link?
Transportation Secretary calls highway killings a
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ńîîáůĺńňâŕ
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Driving > Transportation Secretary calls highway killings a "NATIONAL EPIDEMIC" 23 April 2005 18:38:34

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ěîäĺđŕňîđ:

Transportation Secretary calls highway killings a "NATIONAL EPIDEMIC"

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 21 April 2005 22:11:44
 He says the answer is safety belts but i say stop the criminal
coddling and lock up speeders and drunk drivers.

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 nationÂ’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. ThatÂ’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 werenÂ’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.


Add comment
Garth Almgren 21 April 2005 22:48:13 permanent link ]
 Around 4/21/2005 11:11 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
<http://tinyurl.com­/65nqz> wrote:
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.

All excellent news!

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

The guy is nuts. The fatality rate continues it's steady decline and is
at an all-time low, and this guy calls it an epidemic? Is he smoking the
same stuff as you, Judy?
and urged motorists to buckle up.

That I agree with. Along with appropriate 85th percentile speed limits
and improved education, seat belts are one of the quickest ways to lower
the fatality rate even faster.

--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
Add comment
MC Pee Pants 21 April 2005 23:06:34 permanent link ]
 TV's 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.

No, the answer is to lock up trolls. Send them to Gitmo.

Oh yeah, plonk.

--

Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan

Add comment
N8n 21 April 2005 23:34:53 permanent link ]
 
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.>
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.

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 overall
fatalities in SUV's (which is likely due to more people driving them
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

Add comment
DrunkKlingon 22 April 2005 00:36:48 permanent link ]
 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>

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>
Add comment
Nate Nagel 22 April 2005 02:42:45 permanent link ]
 DrunkKlingon wrote:
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>>
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>>

Well, let's look at it this way. 42,000 people were killed last year in
automobile accidents. apparently 23,500 of them, give or take a few,
were not wearing seatbelts. That means that really under 20,000 people
were killed that *were* wearing seatbelts.

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.

nate

(which reminds me, I need to order a pair of seatbelts for the '55 coupe...)

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Furious George 22 April 2005 03:53:46 permanent link ]
 
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.> >
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
because more drivers were on the road, the National Highway Traffic> > Safety Administration said.>
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
overall> fatalities in SUV's (which is likely due to more people driving them> more miles) and last but not least *fifty-six percent* of people
killed> were not wearing seat belts, which are undoubtedly installed on 95%
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

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.

Add comment
Nate Nagel 22 April 2005 03:57:41 permanent link ]
 Furious George wrote:
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.>>>
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>
because more drivers were on the road, the National Highway Traffic>>>Safety Administration said.>>
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>
overall>
fatalities in SUV's (which is likely due to more people driving them>>more miles) and last but not least *fifty-six percent* of people>
killed>
were not wearing seat belts, which are undoubtedly installed on 95%>
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>
I don't care about VMT.

Why not? VMT and PMT are really the only valid metrics for assessing
whether things are improving or not.
Incidents per VMT are dropping largely because> people are driving longer and longer.>

Warning! Warning! Logical inconsistency.

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.

Ummm... yeah. Sounds like you have some experience in that department,
at least in the fucking up part.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Magnulus 22 April 2005 04:11:06 permanent link ]
 I suspect expressways/highway­s (limited access) have fewer accidents per
mile driven, but this is offset by more fatalities per accident. OTOH, I
suspect non-expressway driving has more accidents but fewer fatalities per
accident.


Add comment
John Lansford 22 April 2005 06:08:14 permanent link ]
 "Furious George" <bugme_69@hotmail.c­om> wrote:
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.>> >
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.>>
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>overall>> fatalities in SUV's (which is likely due to more people driving them>> 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>
I don't care about VMT. Incidents per VMT are dropping largely because>people are driving longer and longer.

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.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Paul DeRocco 22 April 2005 06:21:12 permanent link ]
 Please don't feed the troll.


Add comment
Arif Khokar 22 April 2005 06:23:56 permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:
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?
Add comment
Furious George 22 April 2005 07:03:32 permanent link ]
 
Arif Khokar wrote:> John Lansford wrote:>
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?

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.

Add comment
Rick Powell 22 April 2005 07:34:08 permanent link ]
 OK, let's try it your way.

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.

Rick Powell
IDOT District 3

Add comment
Bernard farquart 22 April 2005 07:46:22 permanent link ]
 
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote in message
news:sZKdnf2f3pX0sf­XfRVn-jA@comcast.com­...
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

Actually, they are 9.99 per seat belt at my store.
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%
the percentage is 33 in my fleet. ;)
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.

Nope, hard to feel bad about someone who did put on the seat belt,
I installed a set on my 62 scout, along with the leather buckets from
a Mercur Scorpio, all it took to put in belts was a big bolt, and two
washers, boom. lap belts.

Bernard


Add comment
Bernard farquart 22 April 2005 07:49:30 permanent link ]
 
"Rick Powell" <wrkapowell@ivnet.c­om> wrote in message
news:1114140848.853­542.291460@z14g2000c­wz.googlegroups.com.­..> OK, let's try it your way.>
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.

Well, it is actually only tragic for those of you who really did lose a
family or friend to a vehicular accident, for the rest of us it is just
numbers, huh?

Bernard


Add comment
Arif Khokar 22 April 2005 10:44:48 permanent link ]
 Furious George wrote:
It makes much more sense to discuss per capita rates than VMT or PMT> rates.

That's like saying that it makes more sense to measure birthrate per
female, no matter what the age.

In reality, it makes more sense to measure rate over the population that
it applies to. In the case of birthrate, it should be per female in the
reproductive age range (or some subset of that). Similarly, it makes
more sense to measure crash or fatality rate per driver miles. The
people driving are the one's that are exposed. The one's who aren't
driving should not factor into the equation.
Add comment
Magnulus 22 April 2005 12:01:03 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
Nate Nagel 22 April 2005 13:46:17 permanent link ]
 Furious George wrote:
Arif Khokar wrote:>
John Lansford wrote:>>
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?>
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.>

If people are driving more but the roads are equally safe, shouldn't
fatailities per VMT remain the same?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Nate Nagel 22 April 2005 13:58:25 permanent link ]
 Magnulus wrote:
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.

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

Speeding is rarely 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.>

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.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Eric & Kathy Vander Yacht 22 April 2005 16:01:53 permanent link ]
 Speed limits keep increasing while the death rate declines. Perhaps we
should continue to raise the speed limit while increasing enforcement on
the dangerous behaviors that really impact the death rate. Drunk
driving, running stop signs and lights, aggressive drivers who refuse to
yield the passing lane, etc...

Best regards,

Eric

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.>
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.>

Add comment


Daniel J. Stern 22 April 2005 17:20:31 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, N8N wrote:
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.

Same ol' NHTSA, full o' laughs, trying to justify their continued
ill-deserved salaries.

The US has slipped badly in the worldwide rank of highway safety, from
first at the beginning of the 1970s to *sixteenth* and *tenth* today (per
vehicle-KM travelled, and per vehicle registered).
www.scienceservings­ociety.com has good info on the matter.

A major part of the problem is that we are allowing doctors and lawyers to
make our traffic safety regulations, rather than engineers. Doctors are
useless for anything except a consultation role in developing
crashworthiness standards (the crash has happened, now what happens to the
humans inside the vehicle?). They are completely unqualified to make
policy for crash avoidance (the safest crash is the one that DOESN'T
HAPPEN) and other important aspects of highway safety. Lawyers are even
less qualified in this area -- their specialty is making sure the agency
doesn't get sued and setting up non-tariff trade barriers in the form of
different-but-not-b­etter vehicle standards. And yet, the head of NHTSA is
a trauma surgeon. Not an engineer.

It doesn't help that in addition to allowing unqualified people to make
our safety laws, we also -- in typical US fashion -- stand atop our hill
and pound our chest and crow about the US market having the world's safest
cars, and laugh at the stupid rest of the world and their dumb little
international ECE safety standards...

...except ours are *demonstrably* less safe, and theirs are *demonstrably*
better.

DS

Add comment
Geo 22 April 2005 18:01:26 permanent link ]
 
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.>
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 -
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.



Everything is an epidemic these days.

Add comment


Arif Khokar 22 April 2005 20:11:23 permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:
However, I would also expect drivers to obey speed limits on> non-interstates, which they most certainly do not.

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.
Add comment
Alex Rodriguez 22 April 2005 20:26:09 permanent link ]
 In article <n0ng6114ri8oabuvrj­s85ja0s4abrq9p3s@4ax­.com>, jlnsford@bellsouth.­net
says...
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.

Who doesn't want to admit it? Safer roads definitely contribute to lower
death rates. Safer roads also allow you to drive safely at faster speeds.
Better tires, brakes and suspension also contribute to both safety and
the ability to drive faster safely. Unfortunately some short sighted
individuals have missed all of this. They still believe improvements in
cars stopped back in the 60's.
---------------
Alex

Add comment


Alex Rodriguez 22 April 2005 20:29:25 permanent link ]
 In article <1114178041.106340.­229620@z14g2000cwz.g­ooglegroups.com>,
njnagel@hotmail.com­ says...
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.

Well said.
--------------
Alex

Add comment
Alex Rodriguez 22 April 2005 20:36:24 permanent link ]
 In article <ecudnfY85ahYV_XfRV­n-1Q@comcast.com>, njnagel@flycast.net­ says...
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.

The reason is pretty obvious. Licensing standards in the US are so low
that you really can't expect most drivers to be able to drive their car
at it's limits and there for avoid accidents. Instead they concentrate
what happens when you crash.
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.

True.
-------------
Alex

Add comment
John Lansford 22 April 2005 21:53:33 permanent link ]
 Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:
John Lansford wrote:>
However, I would also expect drivers to obey speed limits on>> non-interstates, which they most certainly do not.>
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.

How nice for you. How about state highways with no control of access?
How about expressways? Two lane rural roads? Do you obey those speed
limits too?
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.

Lots of assumptions on your part, Khokar, and like most assumptions,
they're wrong.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Matthew Russotto 22 April 2005 21:57:35 permanent link ]
 In article <I42ae.90839$f%4.46­941@bignews1.bellsou­th.net>,
Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth­.net> wrote:> 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.

It is an acceptable risk. 1.5 deaths per hundred million vehicle
miles travelled. How many hundred million miles do you expect to
travel in a car in your lifetime?
Alot of European countries take traffic fatalities/crashes more seriously>than the US. Sweden has a national goal of "zero fatalities".

If Sweden takes that seriously, then Sweden is run by idiots.
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?

Those other "wars" are stupid too.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Add comment
Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 22 April 2005 23:17:56 permanent link ]
 Yeah, but from prior posts it's obvious your reading skills lack much
to be desired. I mean, come on; you can't tell the difference between 6
& 60! What makes you think anyone is going to think anything you have
to say is reasonable?

Add comment
John Lansford 22 April 2005 23:47:45 permanent link ]
 "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:

And why do you think it is that drivers are conditioned to treat>speed>> >limit signs as suggestions, if that?>> >
I put it down as basic human impatience, selfishness, and a "me>first">> mentality.>
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.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
N8n 23 April 2005 00:09:48 permanent link ]
 
John Lansford wrote:> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>
And why do you think it is that drivers are conditioned to treat> >speed> >> >limit signs as suggestions, if that?> >> >
I put it down as basic human impatience, selfishness, and a "me> >first"> >> mentality.> >
It certainly couldn't be that 90% of posted highway limits (and many
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.>

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.

nate

Add comment
Brent P 23 April 2005 01:26:26 permanent link ]
 In article <raph6119l3jkmcfpc2­21vu3p5kpoijj5d8@4ax­.com>, John Lansford wrote:
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.

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?


*We already know they don't, and as a bicyclist, I find underposted speed
limits greatly disturb the traffic flow and cause me problems. I would
rather ride a road with 55mph traffic that was signed with a 60mph speed
limit than a road with a 35mph speed limit and 50mph traffic.



Add comment
John Lansford 23 April 2005 01:45:17 permanent link ]
 "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:
John Lansford wrote:>> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>>
And why do you think it is that drivers are conditioned to treat>> >speed>> >> >limit signs as suggestions, if that?>> >> >
I put it down as basic human impatience, selfishness, and a "me>> >first">> >> mentality.>> >
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.>>
I'm not saying *I* do it - I'm saying that *many* drivers do it.

Well, that is certainly YOUR cookbook answer when trying to make the
argument about how posted speed limits are too low.
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?

Actually I do, because I've not been on that road yet and there may be
some other factor that requires that particular speed.

Are you saying you blast down a road as fast as you can to see how
fast it ought to be driven?
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.

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.

Now, I'm sure you are going to respond by saying "let the driver
decide and accept the consequences", but I don't have that leeway, nor
would I want it. Raising speed limits to accomodate speeders' wishes
would create IMO a situation where every state would become
immediately liable for telling motorists that a road is safe at that
speed, when certain features on it wouldn't be.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
John Lansford 23 April 2005 02:09:31 permanent link ]
 tetraethylleadREMOVE­THIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
In article <raph6119l3jkmcfpc2­21vu3p5kpoijj5d8@4ax­.com>, John Lansford wrote:>
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.>
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? >
Strawman alert. Show me anyone who thinks interstates should be
signed for 35mph.

I haven't advocated that, nor have I seen anyone who thinks this is a
good idea. My point is that if a road has a design speed that should
be near that of the posted speed, but as time goes on changing
conditions other than the geometry take place that may require an even
lower speed limit.

Case in point: one of my projects was a connector between downtown
Elizabeth City and the newly opened US 17 Bypass. My project was a
four lane, median divided road with shoulders, very flat grades (0.5%)
and long, broad horizontal curves. The length of the project was just
over 4 miles and there is minimal control of access (a few at grade
intersections, and driveways at specific locations only).

The design speed is 50mph, and the posted speed was recommended to be
45mph, even though everyone involved with the project realized that
for the first 3.5 miles, a motorist could easily travel 65-70mph on
this road in the daytime.

Shortly after the road was opened, the division traffic engineer
called me and asked if I would approve him raising the speed limit to
55mph for the first 3.5 miles (at the Elizabeth City end of the
project is a very sharp minimum 50mph radius curve and two railroad
crossings). He said he would keep the 45mph speed for the last half
mile. Since we had used overdesigned vertical curves and the
horizontal curvature was flat, I told him I didn't have a problem with
him doing so, but warned him that the guardrail was not designed for a
higher speed and development along the route would probably require
him to reduce the speed limit in a relatively short period of time.

Now developers are putting in a Mega Wal-Mart at one of those driveway
access points, and another one is planning a large subdivision at
another access point. Signals will undoubtedly be requested after
these developments open to maintain traffic, and the speed limit will
probably have to be reduced after this point to maintain safety.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Magnulus 23 April 2005 11:45:00 permanent link ]
 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.


Add comment
Magnulus 23 April 2005 11:47:37 permanent link ]
 
"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu>­ wrote in message
news:d4b8ic$m6o$2@n­ewsmaster.cc.columbi­a.edu...> Who doesn't want to admit it? Safer roads definitely contribute to lower> death rates. Safer roads also allow you to drive safely at faster
speeds.

On a limited access road, such as an expresway, I might agree to an
extent. On an ordinary street, no, I don't believe that's the case at all.

Speeders don't just speed on expressways, they speed everywhere.


Add comment
L Sternn 23 April 2005 12:03:31 permanent link ]
 On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:26:09 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu>­
wrote:
They still believe improvements in >cars stopped back in the 60's.

I thought that was Cory
Add comment
John Lansford 23 April 2005 16:21:45 permanent link ]
 "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth­.net> wrote:
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.

Actually that was a total gas consumption improvement, and involved
installing computerized signal synchronizers on nearly every city's
traffic system. Don't recall the cost, but it was somewhere in the
billions of dollars to do this.
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.>
In urban areas, on surface streets you are no doubt correct. However,
even if they were synchronized, speeders would still get stopped.
They are timed for the posted speed, so someone travelling faster than
that speed would still wind up having some of them turn red.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Khjc@Jersey.Net 23 April 2005 18:11:53 permanent link ]
 
John Lansford wrote:> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>
<big time snip>
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 - 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.

Add comment
John Lansford 23 April 2005 18:38:34 permanent link ]
 "khjc@jersey.net" <khjc@jersey.net> wrote:
John Lansford wrote:>> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>>
<big time snip>>
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 - you forgot one of the most important points - There's "Design>Speed", and then there's the "Posted Speed".

No I haven't. I've been clear in stating they are different, and that
the posted speed typically is at or lower than the design speed.
As you are well aware,>the design speed will always be about 5 or 10 mph higher than the>posted speed,

No, it will be equal to or higher than the posted speed limit. I've
designed roads that were posted at the design 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.

IMO, if I were the Highway Design God in charge of setting standards,
I would cut all safety factors in half. They are clearly too high and
contribute in large part to people recognizing that a speed higher
than the posted speed is still safe to travel at, especially on
interstates/freeway­s. Where that gets motorists in trouble is on
rural two lane roads and urban roads, where that same mindset still
takes hold, but those kinds of roads don't have the same high level
designs and often are not nearly as forgiving.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Matthew Russotto 25 April 2005 19:28:08 permanent link ]
 In article <M%mae.116825$wo1.9­9744@bignews6.bellso­uth.net>,
Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth­.net> wrote:
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.

You do realize that _we've_ been saying similar things about lousy
stoplight timing, right? Whereas you and yours have been supporting
red light cameras instead of fixing the problems.
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 don't get anywhere faster. Sometimes they get a light
cycle ahead, and then hit the next several greens while you're sitting
at red after red.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Driving > Transportation Secretary calls highway killings a "NATIONAL EPIDEMIC" 23 April 2005 18:38:34

see also:
Re: Fuel filter location on 94 6 Cyl?
air filter 96 5.0 explorer
pass tests:
see also:
help my 1995 bmw 325ic will not turn…
hi welcome to a useful web-log...
found today at…

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Mińhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .