2009 Traffic Fatalities Lowest Since 1950

Yeah, I can testify to that. I can remember back in the late '60s when, I was in high school, getting caught drinking beer (myself and my girl with a buddy and his girl) and the cops simply taking away the beer and giving us a good lecture.

Watch the old 1950s and 1960s shows and you’ll realize that drinking was considered a normal part of everyday life, and drinking and driving was largely considered normal.

Times have definitely changed. Sadly, the laws are still way too weak and the system of jurisprudence way too soft to get the drunks off the road. IMHO we need to impound their cars, to be confiscated upon conviction, as an absolute minimum.

Similar story here. Years ago in college a college friend and me and our girlfriends were on our way to a football party. My friend drove his father’s Buick through a red light downtown. We had an open case of beer in the back seat and had all been drinking.

My friend, a very smooth talker, “reasoned” with the police officer stopping us (we’re not in Mexico here), and we were let go with a wish to enjoy the football weekend.

By the end of the school year my friend had recogized his real talents and switched from engineering to LAW!!! He became a very successful defense lawyer.

Not only was DUI not considered a problem…but drinking in general wasn’t considered a problem…I had no problem what-so-ever getting into a bar at 16 (drinking age was 18 at the time). A couple of times the police would show up and ask for IDs…Those of us who couldn’t produce a valid ID were just kicked out of the bar… and the bar NEVER got any sanctions or fines.

Most car accidents are preventable. You are celebrating that only 33,000 people died in 2009. Only 90 people each day died of car accidents. Only 3.75 people every hour of every day died. For the same year, according to the NTSB, about 830 people died in U.S. airline accidents or other sources of fatalities (this is more of a true count than you hear in the news). That’s 2.27 people per day. And I will fit in a statistic that I simply must that really doesn’t affect my point above: in 2006, 830,000 people died of heart disease.

Good point; the recent survey in my area reaffirmed that 85% of all accident were caused by personal (driver) error, a completely avoidable situation. The other 15 % works out to weather, road conditions, Acts of God (floods, tornados), and poor vehicle maintenance (also avoidable). Poor vehicle design did not even rate, and if so, would have been the tiniest fraction of 1%.

Toughening up the driving standards and the penalties will now have far more effect than spending ever more money on making cars “idiot proof”.

Agree that 33,000 fatalities is 33,000 too many, but much progress has been made.

You sound like a drunk driving attorney, or a drunk driver. you are trying to justify that driving impaired is ok. Do you not think that groups that try to educate and punish people for impaired driving do not have an important cause?

"Note that you didn’t say "half of our automobile-related deaths are proximately caused by alcohol; no, you used involve alcohol. This means, for example, that if (for instance) two sober drivers wreck into each other, and the crash involves and kills a drunken pedestrian–it goes in the books as a “fatality involving alcohol.” "

Is it not a fatality involving alcohol if a pedestrian is drunk? What is your logic here?

I could not agree more with you more mountain bike.

I can say as far as the “good old days” That there was a higher instance of utility poles getting hit by drunk drivers, I am younger than those days but i work at a utility and the older linemen tell me that on a friday or saturday night it seemed you always got some drunken idiot to slam into a pole, they used to take bets on it.

One night they were replacing a pole that a drunk driver broke off when he hit it, and while they were setting the new pole another drunk driver slammed into the back of the utility truck, thank God no one was hurt except for the drunk driver.

We still get utility poles hit by drunken drivers, and I am always glad they hit the pole instead of hitting another car and injuring innocent people, we had one guy killed when he hit one and others walk away. The sad part is it is completely preventable

Whenever did I justify it? Whenever did I excuse it? Whenever did I mitigate the severity of drunk driving? I am interested in knowing just where in the above text you extract that I suggest that drinking and driving is ok. If I were inclined to think that driving impaired is ok, then I would write, “Driving impaired is ok.” On the contrary. My point is, no matter the penalty, people still do it because we are imperfect and act stupidly. In the Army, we have a saying, “Just when you make something foolproof, along comes a bigger fool.” I am a Military Paralegal who assists in prosecuting Soldiers and I do so with great zeal. I have yet to see ANY set of circumstances unfold where there was NOT an alternative to drinking and driving. Sure, we can ‘what if’ or supppose or build hypotheticals. But in actual application, there has ALWAYS been an alternative. Drunk driving is 100% preventable. It takes a complex series of affirmative and deliberate steps to accomplish. If you find in anything I wrote that is, in any form, justifying drinking and driving, then your preception is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

“…and poor vehicle maintenance…”

You know, I’ve wondered about that for awhile. Every now and then I notice a blurb in the newspaper, something like: “single car accident, driver apparently lost control of vehicle and ran off the road or into a pole, driver killed, drugs and/or alcohol not thought to be a factor, police sift clues, etc”

I wonder if some of those accidents are caused by tie rods, ball joints, or CV axles giving out and people either don’t know, don’t care, or don’t pay attention to their car; don’t realize this is dangerous. I’ve had several vehicles pass me on the interstate where I can hear their axle ‘clicking’ from inside of my car.

How many postings do we see here where people ask, “my car has been clicking, rattling, shaking, etc for a year, mechanic says I need new (axle, ball joints, etc) but I think he’s just trying to rip me off…”? And then the thing finally fails and the person loses control of the vehicle? Just a thought…

Not only cars; a recent safety check of TRUCKS (the owners of which should know better) found 20% had to be taken off the road for safety-related repairs and a full 40% had some defect or other and repairs were ordered.

In Japan and Western Europe cars go through an annual detailed inspection for both safety and emissions. Together with better driver training it goes a long way to reduce “avoidable” accidents.

I have several friends who are in the “accident reconstruction” business, and see some real horror stories with cars, trucks and busses. However, with the single car accident. where the “driver lost control of the vehicle”, there is often no further investigation, although the next of kin could order one and pay for it.

No, No… That response was directed @ meanjoe75fan. I agree completely with what you said, Read his reply to your first comment and you will see what i mean.

There’s a lot of good information here, but there are some very important contributions to highway safety that have not been touched on yet. The crashworthiness of automobiles has increased many-fold over the last thirty years in particular. Much of the credit goes to the auto companies for building better vehicles than the public even realizes.

While I agree that limiting drunk drivers (yes, the old days were as bad as they say), and improved First Responder capabilities are great, the design of your car has a lot of safety features that you are totally unaware of. For example, the structure itself is full of “crash triggers” that result in the car absorbing crash energy by crumpling in designed ways that protect passengers. Many people curse the expense of repairing a damaged unibody vehicle, but their not factoring in the injuries they escaped. The placement of these triggers is derived from crash testing vehicles even long after they are in production. The other major limitation on fatalities is the virtual elimination of the post-crash fire that use to kill many people who had survived the crash itself, another result of crash testing. Crash testing has provided data to inspire many safety features that no one would have thought of otherwise, although these crashes cost many millions of dollars each year.

Although his name is cursed in the auto industry, all these safety crashes and safety initiatives are due to the work of Ralph Nader in the 1960’s and 70’s. Not only that, but in spite of ridiculous litigation awards, the threat of litigation is a vital factor in auto companies’ pursuit of safety. The size of the awards need to be mitigated to eliminate the jackpot mentality of accident attorneys, but litigation is a valid way of maintaining product integrity on all products here in the U.S. in other countries, the government does that very well, especially in Germany and Japan. There is no coincidence to their being the leaders of the industry.

What concerns me however, is that the better the cars get, the more careless the drivers become. The response is to make driving even easier, thus removing them even further from the situational awareness everyone needs to bring to the process of hurtling down the road inside of a 6000 pound cannonball. Personally, i think automation is making everyone stupid, simply by limiting their participation, and hence, their understanding of what they’re doing.

I have lived in other countries (Germany, Canada, Jordan, and the West Indies). Outside the United States, it takes a minimum of two years to get a drivers license, and they don’t give you one until you’ve passed a test at each stage; G1, with a fully licensed driver; G2 surface streets only; G3, highway capable. The difference is only too obvious when you’ve lived there.

Ahhh. Check. Got it. I am part of the prosecution team, not the defense team. I misread your response and got all riled up. I stand corrected and I offer you sincerest apologies for my scathing response.