A national crisis ignored by our leaders: Traffic accidents
Which brings us back to what a president might say or do about this issue. The short answer is plenty. With all due respect to our libertarian friends, highway safety is an area where concerted governmental action has proven itself effective at saving lives.
Successful government action has ranged from requiring automakers to redesign gasoline tanks and install mirrors, better lights, safety glass, air bags, and seat belts to coercive measures such as vehicle inspections, mandating helmets for motorcyclists and the wearing of those seat belts — as well as assisting in a veritable crusade against drunk driving. Tremendous strides have also been made in improving the design of roads, guardrails, school crossings, bridges, and roundabouts.
These things work. The deadliest year on record in the United States was 1972. That grim year there were 54,589 traffic fatalities, with another 1.25 million injured. Since then there has been a steady decline. In 2011, the number of killed was 32,310, the lowest figure since 1949 — when the population of the country was half what it is today.
So far in 2012, the trend seems to be heading slightly upward again. It’s not clear why.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Idiot. Balance the budget grow the economy, then come back and talk about this.
If the number was 14, he’d still be bleating. It’s the “government action” he craves, not the lives that might be saved.
More progressive “war on whatever” so we can let the government run everything.
Shut up, Carl.
rightwingyahooo on October 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM
There’s more suicides in America than traffic deaths. Deal with that first; then talk to me about cars.
platypus on October 2, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Obama is handling it…once gas hits $10 a gallon and everybody is unemployed, nobody will be driving…killed 2 birds with one stone there, he did.
AUINSC on October 2, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Geez, just ban personal vehicles. Why piddle around with all the useless half-measures?
J.E. Dyer on October 2, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Let’s reduce the speed limit to 20 mph on all roads and aggressively enforce it! Think of how many lives will be saved! And just think of how many of them will be children! Let’s do it for the children! If only one child’s life can be saved, isn’t it worth it?!?!?!
farsighted on October 2, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Well, given that every instance I have seen where a driver has done something stupid, they have been holding a cell phone up to their ear, maybe the proliferation of cell phones has something to do with it.
Count to 10 on October 2, 2012 at 9:20 PM
About 90+% of the time I see someone driving in a way that 25 years ago would have prompted serious accusations the driver is drunk they are holding a cell phone to their ear.
farsighted on October 2, 2012 at 9:26 PM
But it somehow IS clear that we need massive government intervention.
Brilliant deduction there, Sherlock.
logis on October 2, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Obviously Carl has thought a lot about the issue. One might even say he’s obsessing about it.
All that thinking about traffic fatalities and injuries and the goof couldn’t come up with any better idea than let’s ask Romney, and, oh yeah, Obama.
He sounds more like a concern troll paging debate moderators about a great gotcha question for Mitt.
Dusty on October 2, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Texting is far far worse. I see people texting in heavy traffic at 80 mph almost every day. That’s about 180 feet per second in a vehicle that may weigh 3800 lbs if it is a midsize sedan.
Texting is far worse because people who generally can’t drive take their eyes off the road for *seconds*. And then collisions happen. There’s nothing ‘accidental’ about them.
CorporatePiggy on October 2, 2012 at 9:39 PM
The problem is too much government intervention already. They have mandated fuel standards which has resulted in lighter vehicles which cause more injuries in accidents.
JimK on October 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM
According to this, fatalities per million vehicle miles went from 1.56 in 2000 to 1.11 in 2010, with two slight blips up in 2002 and 2005.
I don’t know what 2011-12 are, but it really doesn’t matter. Like I said, Carl’s concern trolling for this to be a gotcha question at the debate for Mitt, kind of like the birth control thingie Stephanopoulos pulled. If I were on Mitt’s team, I’d have something ready, ’cause it’s ripe for exaggeration of facts, stats and solutions.
Dusty on October 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM
No mention of how the federally-mandated added weight has kept mpg essentially unchanged since the 80s…
rogerb on October 2, 2012 at 9:48 PM
D’oh, … According to this
Dusty on October 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Sorry, not true. Injuries have declined in tandem with fatalities.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1106.pdf
cam2 on October 2, 2012 at 10:21 PM
I can’t tell if this is a joke. Is this guy a mediocre up and coming satirist?
dts-01 on October 2, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Can you imagine if the car and airplane hadn’t been invented in the past but were instead invented today? Neither would see the light of day. Democrats would blame Republicans for wanting to see your family die in those things and it’s likely that the Republicans would oppose it based on not wanting to be blamed for for any death or injury that would occur.
Women weren’t allowed to vote back when those things got going. That’s all.
Buddahpundit on October 2, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Ah, yes – more and greater government intervention against the ability of the individual to go where he pleases, when he pleases and how he pleases. It’s worked so well in Australia (for nanny statists and bureaucratic control freaks). Look out America – here it comes. The first and most obvious attack point will be drink-driving which makes a lot of sense to start with but ends up being a convenient way of criminalising all drivers. The blood alcohol limit for driving in Australia was 0.08 in the 1970s then in the ’80s it was reduced to 0.05. Now they’re talking about zero. Yes, that’s right – zero. Have a cold beer on a hot day and you can’t drive for 12 hours; have a few beers at a Sunday afternoon BBQ and you can’t drive to work in the morning. And does even the current 0.05 limit stop drunk drivers? No. They still catch massively over the limit drink drivers. But the point of dropping the limit to zero is to enable the police to stop and test drivers for no reason whatsoever.
The Thin Man Returns on October 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Mandatory air bags on cell phones. It’s the only right thing to do.
DarthBrooks on October 3, 2012 at 12:14 AM