Why does a bad mistake ever become criminal? An intentional act needs to be punished. I guaran-damn-tee you that these folks will never forget or forgive themselves.
Here we go again ...
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Why does a bad mistake ever become criminal? An intentional act needs to be punished. I guaran-damn-tee you that these folks will never forget or forgive themselves.
2minkey
bootlicker
and every year the population grows. it grew 10.8% over the 1990s. not sure what the current rate is but 1% sounds reasonable. that could lend some support to the idea that the safety measures are having some incremental effect, though i'd hardly endorse an assertion of the same.
Accidents should be going up at the rate of 400-500/year to sync with population changes. they aren't.
go figure.
go fish.
Accidents should be going up at the rate of 400-500/year to sync with population changes. they aren't.
go figure.
go fish.
2minkey
bootlicker
well, there is such a thing as being criminally negligent. or, rather, our legal system has talked such a thing into existence.
and i guess i'm still fairly unsympathetic. if you're so self-absorbed that you leave your kiddie in the car to bake for hours, you're, quite simply, an asshole.
JTP
New Member
"HOMOCIDE, n.
The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homocide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain... the classification is for advantage of the lawyers."
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce
The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homocide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain... the classification is for advantage of the lawyers."
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Check the rate per 100,000 and you will see that it changes very little regardless of the increase in population. Also note that the number of auto related fatalities is always 43,000+ like I said.
Note that the rate per 100,000 has been relatively flat since 1983 regardless of improvements in automotive design and safety features. Accidents, under which auto deaths are included, are the fifth column in the chart and I have bolded all of the figures for the various years.
2minkey
bootlicker
okay. still seems like the actual numbers v population should show some difference, but you're right about the per 100k for the most part. although a some point a five point spread isn't so small given the size of the per 100k numbers. ~15% diff at the extremes, which is most certainly statically significant. though of course the interval now is closing back. wonder what was so special about '92.
check this out and explain what happened between 85-90 and 90-95. notice the total number of accidents vs the death rate per 100k. there's notable differences within each of those intervals. what do you think they mean? can you correlate any of that to particular changes, either in the regulatory environment or other stuff?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1071.pdf
check this out and explain what happened between 85-90 and 90-95. notice the total number of accidents vs the death rate per 100k. there's notable differences within each of those intervals. what do you think they mean? can you correlate any of that to particular changes, either in the regulatory environment or other stuff?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1071.pdf
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
It does seem like a benchmark year, doesn't it. I hadn't noticed it until you brought it up.
Check out note 1: "1 Covers only accidents occurring on the road. Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."
The death rate is also in deaths per 1,000, not 100k
I agree that the rate staying relatively flat in the face of an 8-9 million reduction in accidents is pretty wierd. It would make an interesting graph although we don't know the numbers in the intervening years.
I checked out some things in automotive safety improvements that happened around those timeframes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag
On 11 July 1984, the U.S. government required cars being produced after 1 April 1989 to have driver's side airbags
In 1998 dual front airbags were mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and de-powered, or second-generation airbags were also mandated. This was due to the injuries caused by first-generation airbags (This could have some effect on the death rate of heavier people who aren't stopped by the less powerful second generation airbags. -- j)
Anti-lock (ABS) brakes became standard on just about every car in the mid 90s.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/BoosterSeatProgress/pages/BSTimeline.htm
Booster seats for older children mandated in 2000.
LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) made mandatory on vehicles in 2002.
And then there's this:
http://www.carseat.org/Resources/Sachs_CSS.pdf
They mandate the use of carseats but no one tells ya how to use them properly.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
I found this chart interesting.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1077.pdf
The percentage of accidents has gone down from 52.9 to 38.9 yet the number of accidents stays flat. Is this evidence that as drunks get more sober the general public gets stupider?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1077.pdf
The percentage of accidents has gone down from 52.9 to 38.9 yet the number of accidents stays flat. Is this evidence that as drunks get more sober the general public gets stupider?
spike
New Member
Do you have a point? Are you saying the extra lives are not important?
Jim here is an actual study of seatbelt and airbag safety.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I read your initial 9page link, Jim.
Attaining a balance of the amount of danger faced daily by individuals by increasing the amount of dangerous activities to oppose the amount of safety features available.
It doesn't make sense in that: it's the consumer that clamors for higher safety features to counter an increase in accidents. According to those statistics, there is a link between the two (number of safety features and number of accidents) - but the relationship could just as easily be reversed; that is...as the number of accidents begin to rise, safety features are implemented in order to maintain balance or reverse the trends.
Attaining a balance of the amount of danger faced daily by individuals by increasing the amount of dangerous activities to oppose the amount of safety features available.
It doesn't make sense in that: it's the consumer that clamors for higher safety features to counter an increase in accidents. According to those statistics, there is a link between the two (number of safety features and number of accidents) - but the relationship could just as easily be reversed; that is...as the number of accidents begin to rise, safety features are implemented in order to maintain balance or reverse the trends.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
That about sums it up except the increase in dangerous activity is the level of that activity not the activity itself.
As one feels more secure they tend to use that security as a crutch to justify, in their own mind, increasing the level of risky behavior.
"I won't be thrown out of the car because I have a restraint system."
"I can go down this hill a little faster than I usually do because my bicycle helmet will protect me if I fall."
Of course, these are not conscious thought processes.
It doesn't make sense in that: it's the consumer that clamors for higher safety features to counter an increase in accidents. According to those statistics, there is a link between the two (number of safety features and number of accidents) - but the relationship could just as easily be reversed; that is...as the number of accidents begin to rise, safety features are implemented in order to maintain balance or reverse the trends.
The public clamors for the improvements because they want to feel more secure. As they feel more secure, they let down their guard because the device they demanded will protect them. In the end, it is the very device they demanded that is their undoing.
Look at what happened in the one chart HERE. As the percentage of accidents attributable to drunk driving fell 14% the corresponding percentage of BAC = 0.0% accidents rose 14%. There is nothing spectacular in that as the one has to offset the other by the same amount. Otherwise you would not have a final result of 100%.
HOWEVER...
The NUMBER of fatal accidents remained the same regardless of who was causing them. As the accidents involving alcohol plumeted, the number which did not involve alcohol rushed to fill the void. Sort of like nature abhorrs a vacuum.
So what is the cause of this? Hell, I don't know but it could be risk homeostasis through the thought process of "I'm not drunk or drinking so I don't have to be as careful." Drunks just plain don't think so I can't offer a single clue on that.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
I don't have an Excel viewer. I thought I did but got caught thinkin' -- again. Checked the MS site but they don't have any type of viewer for Excel. What's with that? They have a PowerPoint viewer.
2minkey
bootlicker
http://www.openoffice.org/
i use it for everything except powerpoint, which i only use because i have to share files with others using it and there are some formatting issues that occur when i use the openoffice version and then it gets bounced back to powerpoint.
i use it for everything except powerpoint, which i only use because i have to share files with others using it and there are some formatting issues that occur when i use the openoffice version and then it gets bounced back to powerpoint.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
And this one went to work, intending to drop the kid at day care, forgot he was in the back seat asleep and the kid is dead as a result.
I guess she should have put that teddy bear on the front seat.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404582,00.html
I guess she should have put that teddy bear on the front seat.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404582,00.html