The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

jimpeel said:
43,000+ dead each and every year despite all of the mandated safety devices.
Click to expand...

That doesn't show failure. In order to show failure you would need to show that it was less safe than before.

So the number of dead in recent years is useless. Even if you compared it to the number of dead before the the safety devices we all know there are more people now so you have to show a rise in the percentage of deaths per 100 drivers or something.
 
Jimbo, I think you might wanna think twice before you quit that WalMart job. I don't see no op-ed writin career in your future. Stick with the banter, dude.
 
jimpeel said:
How in the hell did we survive cars with no seatbelts, shoulder belts, airbags, non-locking steering wheels and ignitions, crush zones, impact bumpers, steel dashboards, protruding dash knobs, door handles, and window handles, suicide doors without kiddie locks, lighters that worked with the ignition off, and interlock systems.
Click to expand...

By laying our children in the back dash until the bell rang. Then we turned 'em over. (Of course, I'd have been one of those children)
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Jimbo, I think you might wanna think twice before you quit that WalMart job. I don't see no op-ed writin career in your future. Stick with the banter, dude.
Click to expand...

Gee, I say that I want to perhaps submit one stinkin' op-ed piece and suddenly it's a carreer move. :shrug:

Why do you think I asked this group to critique the piece anyway?

Ya got anything constructive to add or just more Wal-Mart bashing?
 
Gonz said:
By laying our children in the back dash until the bell rang. Then we turned 'em over. (Of course, I'd have been one of those children)
Click to expand...

Remember porta-cribs? The kid laying on a mattress in the back seat? Oh, the horror!!
 
spike said:
That doesn't show failure. In order to show failure you would need to show that it was less safe than before.

So the number of dead in recent years is useless. Even if you compared it to the number of dead before the the safety devices we all know there are more people now so you have to show a rise in the percentage of deaths per 100 drivers or something.
Click to expand...

Basically, I need a Lexis-Nexis account.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I bashed your writing, not WalMart. I can, though, if you like...
Click to expand...

Nah. We already know how much you hate Wal-Mart so it would just be so many wasted keystrokes. Wouldn't want you to hurt your fingertips from pounding the keys in unabashed fury and then blame Wal-Mart for it.
 
'Preciate that. Wasted keystrokes don't really put me out so much though. Sometimes you gotta sow a lot of seed to raise a little grass.
 
I finally downloaded all of the stats from 1950-2003 like I said I would. Here they are.

The rate is per 100,000 population and the numbers of dead are only for selected years 50, 55, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000, 2003.

YEAR RATE NUMBER

1950 23.1 33,863
1955 23.4 37,437
1960 21.3 37,142
1961 20.8
1962 22.0
1963 23.1
1964 24.0
1965 24.8
1966 26.5
1967 26.2
1968 27.5
1969 27.6
1970 26.9 53,493
1971 26.3
1972 27.2
1973 26.5
1974 22.0
1975 21.5
1976 21.9
1977 22.9
1978 24.0
1979 23.7
1980 22.9 51,930
1981 21.9
1982 19.3
1983 18.6
1984 19.1
1985 18.8
1986 19.4
1987 19.8
1988 20.4
1989 18.9
1990 18.8 47,900
1991 17.9
1992 16.4
1993 16.3
1994 16.2
1995 16.5
1996 16.5
1997 15.8
1998 15.5
1999 15.5
2000 15.4 43,354
2001 15.4
2002 15.7
2003 15.2 44,059

It would seem that with all of the safety devices and mandates that the rate over a 53 year period would have moved more than 7.9. The death numbers are also higher than they were priotr to all of these mandates.
 
Of course, the number of drivers per 100,000 population remains unchanged over the same period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top