November 15, 2013
If concerned principally about saving lives and public safety, can one reasonably oppose mass use of safer-driving technologies?
The question in title of this post is prompted by this local news item from my own local paper headlined "More Ohioans die on road in 2012." Here are excerpts:
Traffic fatalities rose last year across the United States for the first time since 2005, and Ohio was a big reason why, according to federal data. More people died in car crashes in 37 states in 2012 than in 2011, and only Texas experienced a bigger jump than Ohio did, according to data released yesterday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration....
In all, 1,123 people died in Ohio wrecks last year — an increase of 106 from 2011. More than 70 percent of the increase was attributed to alcohol and impaired driving. Nationwide, 33,561 people were killed in car crashes in 2012, an increase of 1,082. Ohio’s crashes accounted for about 10 percent of the nationwide increase....
Ohio’s trend mirrors what much of the country experienced in 2012: a big jump in traffic fatalities early in the year. About 72 percent of the increase nationwide occurred during the first quarter of the year, and Ralston said Ohio actually experienced a drop in traffic deaths during the second half of 2012. Motorcycle deaths increased in the United States for the third consecutive year.
“I think too many times when we don’t hear about things or think things are going well, we get complacent about that,” MADD Ohio Executive Director Doug Scoles said. “The thing that’s frustrating with this is, impaired driving is completely preventable.”
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also announced yesterday that it would develop plans before the end of the year to encourage automakers to incorporate safety features in more vehicles. Those features include seatbelt interlocks that prevent vehicles from being driven before a seat belt is fastened, alcohol-detection systems and collision avoidance.
MADD Ohio wants the state legislature to require ignition interlocks for all people convicted of drunken driving, and it’s hopeful that the auto industry will take a role in adding the safety technology, Scoles said. “I think crackdown campaigns are effective, (but) they’re short-lived,” he said.
As regular readers know well (even if just from this post yesterday), I like to focus on traffic laws as a means to test whether and when citizens are really prepared to live up to oft-heard claims about the importance of public safety and saving innocent lives. And this local article (just like the one I noted yesterday) further reinforces my sense that significant investments in safer-driving technologies may be the most ready and cost-effective way to save innocent lives and improve public safety.
Recent related post:
- If concerned principally about saving lives and public safety, can one reasonably oppose mass use red-light cameras?
November 15, 2013 at 02:46 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If concerned principally about saving lives and public safety, can one reasonably oppose mass use of safer-driving technologies?:
Only technology has improved safety, never legal changes. Never, no even once in history.
The increase in traffic deaths reflect more miles driven in an improving economy. Again, only technology improves the economy. The legal system is a heavy anchor keeping growth rates miniscule, instead of the more fitting 10% a year. Thank the lawyer traitor for the stagnation, for the depression before it, and for the housing crisis, all 100% the fault of the America hating Ivy indoctrinated lawyer hierarchy traitors. They forced banks to lend to irresponsbile ghetto trash, crackheads, on pain of losing their charters. These sharp business men bundled the loser package and sold it, sight unseen to Europeans. The latter were oblivious to the gangbanger named to head Fannie Mae, to the gay Harvard Law spawn traitor who enacted ruinous business over regulation, and a multitude of other politically correct perfect storm of internal lawyer treason.
The safety strides have been at the front and at the back end. Road and car tech have improved, on the front end. Trauma care has improved at the back end.
If the government wants to make itself useful, stop the left wing obstructionism. Enact legislation immunizing self driving computer code. Any innovating company can face ruinous litigation for a missing comma in a million lines of code, if an accident happens. The human free Google car was accident free until a human drove it. He had a three car pile up in the Google parking lot.
So if one wants to get the deaths from car crashes down to almost zero, crush the lawyer hierarchy with mass executions. Kill the 15,000 lawyer hierarchy traitors to save 30,000 lives a year. It is a self evident utilitarian piece of arithmetic. As a bonus, you can throw in an end to the 20 million FBI Index felonies.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 16, 2013 4:01:06 AM
The single largest factor in vehicle safety is the vehicle operator. If only one mandate were to be imposed on drivers, that mandate should be continuing driver training and requalification for a driver license every three to five years. Technology mandates impose high costs and only chip at the margins in improving safety.
Posted by: Jardinero1 | Nov 16, 2013 8:13:01 AM
Jardinero is correct. When a computer operates a vehicle, there are no more accidents. The government should subsize and immunize the development of such computers.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 16, 2013 12:19:48 PM