What should be done about about all the driving fatalities?

[haggardhouseelf]

I think everyone should have to take an actual driving test each time they need to renew their license.

I know this is only a small part of the problem, but I really feel like a lot of elderly people who are driving really shouldn't be.

I also think people who are morbidly obese shouldn't be allowed to drive. Not without a car designed for their body size so that they can drive safely. I know that's a touchy subject, but when you are driving on the road with other driver's you need to be able to react quickly to situations, and if you cannot lift your foot because there is too little room for you and you've had to squeeze and smush your body into your car... that's not safe. You need a special car to accommodate your body so that you can drive safely.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by HonuMan

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.

I am repping you for a thoughtful reply!

As far as the topic is concerned and the use of statistics, I agree that a different std. (i.e. industrial nations or something else) are fine to start with. It is just a starting point for a dialogue anyway.

I just want people to have rationale, fact based dialogue. I am tired of discussions that start with something like: "My great Aunt Millie was hurt in a car accident, therefore we have to solve this problem!"

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by davemess10

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

Ok - I could live w/that!
Certainly better than that POS in the WH now.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

Originally Posted by davemess10
I'm just waiting for you to throw in "Vote Ron Paul"

At least he thinks for himself and is "his own man".

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by pdxMIKEpdx

At least he thinks for himself and is "his own man".

... i think you mean 'Girl-y-man'

and yet another way to avoid driving fatalities... I met up with an 'Obama-mobile' motorcade in SF last trip down. HE won't be a statistic, but I can see hundreds of potential fatalities in the 'clear-the-street' process. What a pushy bunch they are (~ 50 motorcycles preceeded the 'king cheese'). And that goofy limo.... it will make a nice HEAVY DUTY hearse.

Driving Fatalities will decrease when the insurance industry forces us to all have transponders. (currently required by some).