Thu
Aug 24 2006
11:25 am
By: Brian A.

Which is responsible for more American deaths last year?

(a) The terrorist who want to kill every one of us

(b) Motor vehicles If you only watch national TV news, you'll undoubtedly be surprised to learn that it's (b):

The number of people killed on U.S. roadways in 2005 climbed to the highest level in 15 years, an increase tied to rising deaths among motorcyclists and pedestrians, the federal government reported yesterday. A total of 43,443 people died in traffic accidents last year, up 1.4 percent from the previous year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. The agency said the motorcycle death toll rose for the eighth consecutive year.

Full report here (.pdf file).

Let me get this straight: since 2000, we've had what, 5,000 Americans killed from terrorism? And in the last year alone, over 43,000 were killed out on the roads.

But if you were a Martian whose only contact with Earth was in watching MSNBCNNFox, which of the two would you think was more dangerous to human life? Terrorism, of course. It's terror all the time. Terra, terra, terra. If there's not an alleged terrorism plot for the news networks to cover, they're talking about potential future plots. "Are we safe?"

I'm not suggesting that terrorism isn't something to be concerned about (especially if you're a public policymaker). But how about some perspective on things? You know, a "fair and balanced" look at risk. Statistics suggest that 1 in 84 people will die in a motor-vehicle accident. Perhaps if the media devoted more air time to this threat, people would be more conscientious of road safety.

There's another element to this. Not only are people far more likely to have their safety threated by a vehicle than by a terrorist, but the former is something you may actually be able to control. If a bomb goes off nearby, there might not be much you can do about it. You might simply be at the wrong place at the wrong time. But you can minimize the threat of auto accidents by taking precautions (e.g., seat belts) and driving safely (don't drink or speed).

So ultimately, which of the two threats is it more useful to fret about?

Knoxquerious's picture

Terror Level Elevated

I noticed on teevee the other day that the terror alert had been raised to orange. I immediately started to worry and packed my bags to go to gramma's house in the mountains. I have a policy, if the terror alert goes above yellow, I vote Republican no matter who is running. I suggest you do the same until it gets downgraded to a safe level.

B ean's picture

My favorite treat is

My favorite treat is homemade lemon merengue pie.

gttim's picture

Over there!

Why do you think we are blowing up civilians in their cars over in Iraq? We want to blow them up over there before they can come over here to the US and cause deadly accidents. What part of that don't you understand! That is why we invaded Iraq!

Now I have to go get me some lunch, with Freedom Fries on the side! (The right side!)

Crimsonnape2's picture

Even my kids know the answer...

Even my kids know the answer to this one. What are you going to do, quit driving? For most of us being killed in a car wreck is a result of a voluntarily taken risk, not the case in terrorism. Try finding something really insightful next time, like "Despite the fact that people's legs come in many different lengths, they are all long enought to reach the ground."

Brian A.'s picture

Crimsonnape2:If you want,

Crimsonnape2:

If you want, you can voluntarily move to rural Kansas and your odds of being killed by a terrorist are next to zero.  So what?

My point is putting risks in context, and pointing out the media hysteria.

Imagine if the media went on a "War against vehicle accidents" campaign.  They could feature hour-long documentaries showing mangled cars and accident victims.  Have features on how "The driver next door might be a killer."  Go around to every intersection asking "is this road safe"? 

It wouldn't be as sensational as terror TV, but I bet it could juice up the fear factor a bit.

A key difference, of course, is the nature of the risk.  People see and generally understand what happens in an auto accident, so there's less potential for manipulation.  People generally don't see or understand how terrorism works.  Thus this threat can (and is) being exploited.

That's part of my point.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Nelle's picture

Good point, Crimsonnape2

Or rather, several good points.

Several points that just happen to be contradictory.

First there's:

What are you going to do, quit driving?

OK, let's not get crazy here. No one's suggesting we try to stop or even reduce an act that leads to more than 40,000 deaths a year and is contributing to the destruction of the planet. Don't be silly. Driving as much as we want is our God-given right as Amurcans, and besides, as our redneck friend indicates, we have no choice about it anyway.

But then there's: 

For most of us being killed in a car wreck is a result of a voluntarily taken risk ...

Which is it, voluntary or inevitable? 

For many of us, it is inevitable, but only because we've created cities and towns and suburbs where we have no choice but to drive. Those places subsequently endanger anyone who, by choice or necessity, tries to get around any other way.

But it's not inevitable that the places we make are like that, and we could eliminate a lot of those 40,000-plus deaths if we would just knock it off. And a lot of the deaths resulting from obesity, too, because we'd all be more likely to walk and bike more.

I'm sure that's just crazy talk, though ... 

Ralph's picture

Jeez. Try comparing apples

Jeez. Try comparing apples to apples next time. I can't believe you are comparing terrorism deaths to accident deaths. If you really believe this is a legit comparison, there is nothing I can say to help you see the other point. Good luck my friend.

Sven's picture

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives