backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Apr 6 at 12:49 PM


New England saw over 18% more fatalities in 2010 than 2009  (Source: Detroit News)
Less deaths thanks to safer cars and other factors

Despite all the warnings and talk about traffic fatalities related to distracted driving and texting while driving, many continue these unsafe activities. Despite the continued ignoring of law in many states by many drivers, the death rate from traffic fatalities has declined in 2010.

What's impressive about the decline in deaths from traffic accidents in 2010 is that it happened despite the fact that more driver miles were reported in 2010. This is the fifth straight year that a reduction in fatalities on the nation's highways has been recorded. In 2010, the number of deaths in on the roads in America dropped to 32,788. That is the lowest number since 1949 according to federal regulators.

Fatalities also declined 3.2% compared to the number from 2009. The highway miles increased in 2010 to about 20.5 billion miles more than in 2009.

However, there are three areas in the U.S that saw an increase in traffic fatalities in 2010. The areas include New England and the Midwest with fatalities up 18.9% in New England and 3.9% in the Midwest. The figures are based on projections with final numbers to be released this summer.

The 2010 fatality rate is expected to be 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; the rate was 1.13 per 100 million miles in 2009.

"Last year's drop in traffic fatalities is welcome news and it proves that we can make a difference," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Still, too many of our friends and neighbors are killed in preventable roadway tragedies every day. We will continue doing everything possible to make cars safer, increase seat belt use, put a stop to drunk driving and distracted driving and encourage drivers to put safety first."

LaHood is one of the driving forces behind the bans on texting while driving and the push to hands free technology. However, LaHood isn't opposed to seeking bans on hands free tech as well if it is found to contribute to accidents on the nation's roads. The reduced deaths are attributed to better policing of drunk drivers and safer cars among other things.

David Strickland from the NHTSA said, "NHTSA will continue pressing forward on all of our safety initiatives to make sure our roads are as safe [as possible]."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: "We don't care"
By TSS on 4/1/2011 7:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom is far *less* important then the prevention of creating anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

I just had a bowel infection for a week. Had to go to the bathroom every 10 minutes in constant pain. No more then 3 hours of sleep each night, in 1 hour intervals. If there is anything i'd call the opposite of free i'd say that.

6 pills, 2 a day for 3 days. Cleared it right up. Pre-anti biotics, it would've taken 3 months, if it didn't kill me.

And that pain didn't even register compared to the tooth infection i had 3 weeks ago for 10 days. Anti biotics took care of that within a week as well.

I sincerly do not want to think how much pain i would've had with both infections concurrently, nor how long that would've taken.

If we lose anti biotics medicin is back in the dark ages. And all it takes is 1 smuck who took anti biotics every time he had a runny nose because his busy schedule didn't allow him to be sick, and when the real thing hit, he had too much of a tolerance.

Hell even killing 40 million people would be justified if that would forever prevent anti-biotic resistant bacteria. That would be a blip on the amount of death there would be with a outbreak of a new super bacteria. Especially with todays crowded population centers.


RE: "We don't care"
By ClownPuncher on 4/1/2011 7:57:18 PM , Rating: 4
You're supposed to wash the carrot before you put it all the way up there.


RE: "We don't care"
By wordsworm on 4/2/2011 10:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Did it ever occur to you that it's the people who take antibiotics at the drop of a hat that are the problem?

I don't take antibiotics. Most of the time they serve no purpose and do more harm than good.

Let's see... last week, no bowel infection. Actually, I've never had one.

Tooth infection... well, I keep my gums clean. I've never had a tooth infection either.

Maybe you're the problem because of all the antibiotics you take.

I know folks who will take them for any illness at all. They get a common cold or a flu, the doc gives them a shot and he or she gets his enormous fee for his secretary to administer the shot. Meanwhile, there's no telling if what's making them sick was a bacterial infection or a viral infection.

Antibiotics are heavily abused. It's those people who are causing antibiotic resistance. They're the problem. Did you know that antibiotics kill not only the bacteria that make us sick, but also the bacteria that makes us healthy? How do you know that the antibiotics that you took for your toothache didn't kill helpful bacteria in your bowel which made it vulnerable to a bacterial infection? Often it's about balance, and when you use those drugs, your system goes into a bacterial imbalance.

In any case, since you clearly need more antibiotics than people like me, who rely on good diet, exercise, and hygiene to stay healthy, perhaps you ought to volunteer yourself as one of the 40 million to be exterminated.

In any case, just so you know, there are alternatives to living in metropolises. There are also rural areas. If you think that there are too many people where you live, go find somewhere else to live.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki