William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Robert Rolf wrote:
>> So 50 to 60 thousand PREVENTABLE traffic deaths a year is OK?
>>
> What makes you think they're preventable?

Statistics from when your speed limits were dropped to 55MPH.
Highway death rates declines significantly, then rose again
as the limit was removed, in spite of safer cars decades later.

>  What makes you think that
> you'd be willing to put up with what might be necessary to prevent them?

I would have no problem with driving the posted speed limit rather
that 15mph above, as most traffic does.
I have no problem with NOT driving drunk. (I don't drink, period).

Zero tolerance for drunk driving seemed to work quite well in
Venezuela (circa 1980). If you drove drunk, and cause an accident,
the soldiers patrolling the streets executed you on the spot.
There are NO repeat offenders, and first time DWI is nearly
non existent. The severe deterrent seemed to work well enough there.

Zero tolerance for DWI (driving while intoxicated) with mandatory
jail time would go a LONG way to reducing the current carnage.

An protester who pied our premier just got sentenced to
30 days in jail for assault. Earlier this month a woman
who had a history of drunk driving killed someone by going
the wrong way down a one way highway. She was sentenced to
one year probation. e.g. NO JAIL TIME. Where is the justice in that?
Where is the message that driving drunk will have severe consequences?

If prosecutors would charge drunk driving as 'attempted murder',
since it is only by luck that you don't kill someone, the penalties
might become harsher and more effective as a deterrent.

Death rates CAN be changed, but y/our spineless and ineffective
legal systems allow repeated drunk driving offenses to go unpunished.

> It scares me when people won't take responsibility for their own actions,

Scares me too. And makes me angry that the authorities allow them
to get away with it by failing to impose the legal sanctions available
to them to prevent it.

> but I think it scares me more when people have to find blame for every
> accident.

There is ALWAYS blame assignable, even if it is mechanical failure.
There are no 'accidents'. Just stupid decisions made by drivers,
be it drinking, speeding, lane changes, running lights,
failing to be rested, failing to maintain vehicle etc.

I have avoided many 'accidents' in my 30 years of driving
by having paid attention to my surroundings,
and always driving with an 'escape' space near me.

Why are some drivers able to go decades without 'accidents'
while others are uninsurable because they have so many?

>  And I worry that the things that get made illegal in the US
> are the things that insurance companies are afraid that they might have
> to pay for...

Huh?
Please explain how drunk driving, speeding, unsafe lane
changes, running red lights, etc. are NOT a problem and so
should be legal? These actions are illegal precisely because
they are UNSAFE.

I don't have a problem with insurance companies having different
rates for different classes of drivers IF the statistics warrant
it. I also think smokers should pay 10 times the health premiums of
non smokers since they statistically use 10 times the resources.

Robert
I smell gasoline. Anyone got a match?

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist