What should be done about about all the driving fatalities? (vs., buses)

[StealthRabbit]

What should be done about about all the driving fatalities?


EZ answer within Portland metro... RIDE MAX ... They don't have any trouble running over pedestrians, people in wheelchairs,bicycles, cars, firetrucks...

Wonderful, wonderful idea; "street-level-mass-transit" How intellignet and efficient!

At least you won't be a DRIVING fatality.

[Huckleberry3911948]

we got it here too. well until it comes to an end. mini clown cars and bikes and skates on the street for transport are a no no. drivers apparently have lost collective sense of road safety and concern for others, me generation side effect????.

[ramedud]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

drivers apparently have lost collective sense of road safety and concern for others, me generation side effect????.

In spades.

[davemess10]

Originally Posted by hamellr

What do you suggest?

one option is for PPD to actually have more of a presence on the road. This is BY FAR the least policed of the 6 or so cities I have lived in. I can go entire weeks without seeing a cop out on the road. I think the city has relied a little too heavily on traffic devices and road infrastructure (think about how many streets you know of that have speed humps), than good old-fashioned man power.

All that said I don't think that OR has a "problem" per say. Although I do think there are a higher percentage of bad drivers here (especially people who don't know how to merge properly) than other places I have lived. Lucky for me I ride a bike most places.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by davemess10

one option is for PPD to actually have more of a presence on the road. This is BY FAR the least policed of the 6 or so cities I have lived in. I can go entire weeks without seeing a cop out on the road. I think the city has relied a little too heavily on traffic devices and road infrastructure (think about how many streets you know of that have speed humps), than good old-fashioned man power.

All that said I don't think that OR has a "problem" per say. Although I do think there are a higher percentage of bad drivers here (especially people who don't know how to merge properly) than other places I have lived. Lucky for me I ride a bike most places.

Why on earth would anyone advocate more police? Police are there to clean up messes, file paperwork and make money for government to waste.

Again - what do the stats show??

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

ramdude:
You speak to the subject because it is in your best interest. You earn money "solving this problem." Of course you think everyone NEEDS A DRIVING COURSE, you teach it! Wow - there is a conflict of interest for ya.

Your motives are not as noble as you portray.

Hmm... Would you question the motives of a doctor who advises that everyone get an annual check-up? Or an auto mechanic who advises that car owners periodically change their oil, transmission fluid, etc.? Would the advice be noble if it came from, say, a waiter or a graphic designer instead?

If data shows Oregon has more fatalities than the statistical norm for the country, then perhaps this is a real problem.
If not, then this is just emotional poppycock.

Not necessarily. The US has one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Does that mean that states with obesity rates that fall below the statistical norm for the US don't have an obesity problem?

I don't know what an "acceptable" auto fatality rate is, but I think that ramedude makes some valid points.

[ramedud]

Originally Posted by HonuMan

Hmm... Would you question the motives of a doctor who advises that everyone get an annual check-up? Or an auto mechanic who advises that car owners periodically change their oil, transmission fluid, etc.? Would the advice be noble if it came from, say, a waiter or a graphic designer instead?



Not necessarily. The US has one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Does that mean that states with obesity rates that fall below the statistical norm for the US don't have an obesity problem?

I don't know what an "acceptable" auto fatality rate is, but I think that ramedude makes some valid points.

Thank you sir, you are spot on with those points as well.

I think the fatality rate is more about settling with mediocrity and accepting things for "the way they are", because we as a society are comfortable with it. We're comfortable with the obesity rate, who cares if it's 100% preventable. We're comfortable with the fact that children commit suicide every year, yet we sit back and do nothing about it. We're comfortable with the fact there are homeless children who are starving, yet we turn a blind eye to them.

They're "acceptable" rates because they're "statistically acceptable", therefore everything's fine and dandy. I don't follow this line of thinking, I never have and never will.

[ccjarider]

Ramedudes points about drivers using common sense are valid - on that there is no debate - Sure I get that.

My general concern is the overriding tendency for posters on this site to write something like:
"Oh my gosh, I saw this on the TV, we have a problem!"

Inevitably it degenerates into a proposal for some sort of governmental law, rule, ban etc. imposing some silly solution upon the public and further erroding not just civil liberties, but the ability of our population to even think. We are ruining our country in a zealous quest to protect us from ourselves.

For God's sake, the EPA wants to regulate farm dust on fields! WTF

We are becoming a wimpy society where we turn to bureaucrats to solve anything and everything, even if it is not a problem.
I am repeating myself, but again - statistics must be used to evaluate if a problem exists, not emotion or anecdotal stories.

[davemess10]

I'm just waiting for you to throw in "Vote Ron Paul"

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Ramedudes points about drivers using common sense are valid - on that there is no debate - Sure I get that.

My general concern is the overriding tendency for posters on this site to write something like:
"Oh my gosh, I saw this on the TV, we have a problem!"

Inevitably it degenerates into a proposal for some sort of governmental law, rule, ban etc. imposing some silly solution upon the public and further erroding not just civil liberties, but the ability of our population to even think. We are ruining our country in a zealous quest to protect us from ourselves.

For God's sake, the EPA wants to regulate farm dust on fields! WTF

We are becoming a wimpy society where we turn to bureaucrats to solve anything and everything, even if it is not a problem.
I am repeating myself, but again - statistics must be used to evaluate if a problem exists, not emotion or anecdotal stories.

You make valid points, too. What annoys me about so many discussions is that people often become entrenched in simplistic ideological positions, dismissing out of hand anything that falls outside of their ideology. One example is "Business is good, government is evil" vs. "Government is good, business is evil." What people who take either of these polar positions fail to realize is that both business and government are composed of human beings, and humans are a mixture of good and bad. Abuses occur in both business and government, and I believe that both are needed to check and balance each other. I tend toward Libertarianism, so my approach is to start with self-regulation and the free market -- but in cases where that approach isn't working, I acknowledge that government intervention is sometimes necessary. I don't default to the position of "Government regulation is always going to be worse than allowing the market to regulate itself." Looking at things on a case-by-case basis isn't easy, but life is complex.

I agree that using statistics is important in determining whether a problem exists, but as in my obesity example, there has to be some underlying philosophy to interpret those statistics. What is an acceptable obesity rate? What is an acceptable auto-fatality rate? What criteria do you use to arrive at those rates? Emotion is always going to be a criteria, because humans are emotional beings, and I could make the argument that there's no such thing as a purely logical decision, because emotion always underpins the basis of that logic. In the US, we tend to value the individual over the collective, so any decision that protects the rights of the individual is considered by most to be the more logical decision. In Asian cultures, the converse is true. Neither approach is objectively "right." Each is based on emotion. Most Americans would say that they believe individual rights are important, but "feel" would be more accurate than "believe," because the belief is based on a feeling (i.e., emotion).

So if you take the position that Oregon's auto-fatality rate is acceptable because it falls below the US statistical norm, that's all well and good -- as long as you understand and can explain why you think the US statistical norm is a valid starting point. Why not start with the statistical norm for all modern, industrialized, automobile-based nations (which might be higher or lower than the US norm, for all I know)? As others have pointed out, you can take an extreme position at either end: If you want to reduce the auto-fatality rate to zero, then ban the automobile. If you value freedom above all, then don't regulate the auto industry, don't issue driver's licenses, don't require seatbelt use, don't have a legal blood-alcohol limit (becuase people have different tolerances) -- and let people reseach, make choices, and accept the consequences of their actions. That will result in more auto fatalities, but life involves risk, and we're all going to die of something, anyway. Most of us take a position somewhere between those two extremes, based on our own values. Statistics is one useful tool, but there's no way to arrive at an objectively "right" answer, because one doesn't exist.