Appropriate Focus?
December 2, 2005 5:33 PM   Subscribe

Deaths from international terrorism compared with road crash deaths in OECD countries (Abstract). In a study published in the Journal Injury Prevention, researchers found that people in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are 390 times more likely to die in car crashes than in terrorist attacks. The conclusion of the Brief Report (PDF): "Policy makers need to be aware of this when allocating resources to preventing these two avoidable causes of mortality."
posted by mmahaffie (40 comments total)
 
I don't know if the saddest thing about this post is that there is a journal called Injury Prevention, or the thought that some people might find this eye-opening.

[brit hume] Did you know that more people died in California last year in automobile accidents than soldiers in Iraq? [/brit hume]
posted by billysumday at 5:38 PM on December 2, 2005


But "The War on Cars" doesn't sound nearly as exciting.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 5:39 PM on December 2, 2005


Well, no shit. I've been hit by a car crossing the street, and I worry a hell of a lot more about that happening again than some terrorist soft-target shooting spree taking place while I'm around.
posted by SweetJesus at 5:43 PM on December 2, 2005


I didn't find it eye-opening. I found it dry. I failed to get that across in the post.
posted by mmahaffie at 5:48 PM on December 2, 2005


I am not sure I want the U.S. Federal Government to create an Office of Homeland Traffic Regulation. I am concerned that it would involve banning all turns, increased highway security check points and, of course, removal of all tires before going through airport security. Plus, people would still be hitting each other with cars.

On the plus side, it would give us an excuse to declare war on Japan and Korea for selling Americans VMAs - Vehicular Mansalughter Agents.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:50 PM on December 2, 2005


I like the dispassionate tone of the whole thing.
posted by mmahaffie at 5:50 PM on December 2, 2005


I bet more people die from smoking too - AND THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS IT!
posted by loquax at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2005


this is great if for no other reasons that it ably demonstrates how misplaced people's fears are when it comes to terrorism.

one is much more likely to die in a car accident, be murdered by an individual, succumb to food poisoning, have a heart attack, etc. than die from a terror attack. in the case of auto deaths, extremely more likely.

so stop letting fear of terrorism dictate policy. stop giving it power. it won't be eradicated as long as there's such gross inequalities as exist in the modern world, so contain it as a nuisance (i say that only in the dispassionate societal sense -- obviously it's much more than a nuisance if it happens to you or someone you love, but so's a car accident) and MOVE ON. it will only be our undoing if we allow it to be, which is to say "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
posted by Hat Maui at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2005


"But 'The War on Cars' doesn't sound nearly as exciting."

Wait for the "War On Natural Causes", my friend. That's going to be the ugly one.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:12 PM on December 2, 2005


this is great if for no other reasons that it ably demonstrates how misplaced people's fears are when it comes to terrorism.

This is faulty reasoning. The catastrophic effects of a terrorist attack are disproportionate to the effects of the numerous car accidents that occur. Of course money should be spent on reducing traffic deaths, and it is. Roads are safer than they were, cars are safer, laws are changed, the police enforce them. It's foolish to say that road safety is being ignored compared to safety from terrorist attack. At the same time, terrorism prevention is not only to protect lives, but infrastructure, confidence in government, the stability of civic society, the security of travel and commerce. After 9/11, the airlines almost went bankrupt, the stock market suffered a mini-crash and consumer confidence plummeted. People were buying guns and stockpiling gasoline for crying out loud. This isn't "letting fear dictate your life", it's a normal response to the perception that your government can no longer assure your safety and security. As long as terrorism can occur unfettered, those fears are quite sound. Comparing the two based on simple loss of life is absurd.
posted by loquax at 6:13 PM on December 2, 2005


Because everyone needs an act of terrorism to get around town...
posted by pheh at 6:17 PM on December 2, 2005


Loquax, all the negative effects you mention were caused by irrationally disproportionate fear. That fear was caused primarily by nonstop fearmongering on the TV immediately after 9/11.
posted by cleardawn at 6:17 PM on December 2, 2005


exactly what cleardawn said.

it's a normal response to the perception that your government can no longer assure your safety and security

so what's your response to katrina then? are you paralyzed with fear that when whatever natural disaster that might strike your area could happen at any moment, and your government won't be able to help/protect you?
posted by Hat Maui at 6:22 PM on December 2, 2005


Personally, I'm more afraid of my own table saw than I am of terrorists.

I can't wait to start fightin' 'em over here, too.

Then my table saw and chainsaw won't seem nearly as daunting.
posted by Balisong at 6:24 PM on December 2, 2005


Comparing the two based on simple loss of life is absurd.

you have not established a basis for the truth of this statement. why is it absurd? vehicular deaths are eminently preventable. we could, for instance, make the speed limit no greater than 25 MPH and enforce it rigorously.

the consequence of doing so would be at the very least extreme inconvenience (inability to travel or get goods quickly, to name but two) but it would most certainly prevent loss of life. and yet, we don't fear vehicular death hardly at all.

if terror was looked upon as what it is -- the last refuge of the dangerously desparate -- and not regarded fearfully, it'd just be another fact of life and the truly negative consequences of terror -- all the things you highlighted in your comment -- would not happen. at all.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:28 PM on December 2, 2005


But "The War on Cars" doesn't sound nearly as exciting.

If you die in a car crash, the terrorists win.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:35 PM on December 2, 2005


If we planned our communities with workplaces, shops, and housing all in easy walking distance, we wouldn't need to drive so much. Life expectancy (and quality) would improve dramatically.

(of course oil company profits might suffer, and they are more important than people's lives, or so our government's current priorities imply.)
posted by cleardawn at 6:36 PM on December 2, 2005


More people have died of natural causes than were killed in World War 2. Was Hitler really the threat that everyone thought he was?
posted by fire&wings at 6:44 PM on December 2, 2005


fire&wings, call the DHS when the turrurists assemble a panzer division or two, or when their V2 program enters beta testing. then i'll start to get jittery. until then, keep thy specious comparisons to thyself.

oh, and a brick to the head for the first dope who says "suitcase nukes."
posted by Hat Maui at 6:59 PM on December 2, 2005


Suitecase nukes.

I'll see your "brick to the head" and raise you "the man is keeping you down".
posted by pheh at 7:09 PM on December 2, 2005


meh, spelling++
posted by pheh at 7:11 PM on December 2, 2005


What gives terrorism it disproportionate impact is that we know someone is doing it on purpose.

It's interesting psychology. We'll go to great lengths to stop another human from harming us while accepting far greater harm as an equitable trade-off for ease of transportation because no one is particularly wishing that brand of harm to occur.
posted by scheptech at 7:17 PM on December 2, 2005


I am not sure I want the U.S. Federal Government to create an Office of Homeland Traffic Regulation. I am concerned that it would involve banning all turns, increased highway security check points and, of course, removal of all tires before going through airport security. Plus, people would still be hitting each other with cars.

Yeah, and they would probably call it the national highway traffic saftey administration or something else dumb.
posted by delmoi at 7:24 PM on December 2, 2005


Wait for the "War On Natural Causes", my friend. That's going to be the ugly one.

Nixon signs "War on Cancer" bill
posted by dhartung at 8:43 PM on December 2, 2005


What's interesting about the car crash statistics is the amount of death and serious injury people - in seemingly all countries - seem to have seamlessly integrated into their lives in exchange for the benefits and conveniences cars brings. Deaths on the road in morning rush hours in major metropolis areas are frequent occurences, and strike most people as frustrating inconveniences.

Yet there's far more deaths on our roads coalition soldiers killed in Iraq.

Perhaps we should be calling for an immediate withdrawal from the roads.
posted by extrabox at 9:47 PM on December 2, 2005



this is great if for no other reasons that it ably demonstrates how misplaced people's fears are when it comes to terrorism.


I think it's also kinda great in that it sorta demonstrates how misplaced people's confidence is in the car.

I know everyone thinks cars are a part of nature and traffic is weather and all, but they're a choice we make. We choose to make our societies reliant on them, and they kill us and the planet in the process.

Fish don't know they're wet...
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:20 PM on December 2, 2005


Upon posting...

what extrabox said. s/he basically just said what i said, but much better.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:22 PM on December 2, 2005


At the same time, terrorism prevention is not only to protect lives, but infrastructure, confidence in government, the stability of civic society, the security of travel and commerce.
posted by loquax

Road deaths could be prevented by greater investment in public transportation. To add to what cleardawn said.

Terror is indeed the aim of terror-ism. The over reaction to a relatively small number of often very dramatic deaths. That it's working is the fault of the government who is hyping the EVERYTHING CHANGED AFTER 9/11!!!! thing and milking it constantly to their favor. Consider how much power this gives the terrorists.
Not actual destructive power, but machiavellian theater power. If enough people think you are the man - then you are in fact the man.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:29 PM on December 2, 2005


Road trauma vs. terrorism trauma. Not a horrible comparison, but scheptech has an excellent point up there.

Interesting psychology indeed.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:58 PM on December 2, 2005


what ever happened to the "war on cancer" - or perhaps the "war on heart disease" .... shoot, that would actually bring the war home to the real enemy huh?
posted by specialk420 at 11:29 PM on December 2, 2005


"War on war," "war on apathy," "war on masterbation"
No, strike that last one. Couldn't do that, only using one hand.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:49 PM on December 2, 2005


accepting far greater harm as an equitable trade-off for ease of transportation


posted by poweredbybeard at 11:49 PM on December 2, 2005


Really, the "Terrorists" only have three potential ways of attacking us.

1. Taking over our countries. Ain't never going to happen. Balaklava-clad Islamists are never going to show up at the Whitehouse, or Downing St, or Canberra or anywhere trying to stage a coup and impose Islamic law. So don't even worry your little head thinking about it.

2. Hurting us. Killing us. At this they've been fairly successful, compared to geurilla campaigns in the past. But, as this post highlights, you're much better off worrying about being hit side-on by the prime-mover whos driver didn't see the red light thanks to the little white pills he takes than being blown up my some guy named Abdullah. So don't even worry your little head thinking about it.

3. Fear. On this front, they've won. Fair and square. We're all shit scared. I can't find a garbage bin to put my chocolate bar wrapper in at my local train station anymore. Society is accepting celebrating laws that let people be jailed for months without trial or access to legal counsel. Fuck that shit. This is what you've got to be worried about. And alerting people to the fact that they've got more worthwhile things to worry about than "terrorism" is the first step to defeating the fear and winning our culture back.
posted by Jimbob at 12:09 AM on December 3, 2005


I spent a year working at an insurance company as an analyst. I started off everyday with a review of the large claims (150K or more) made the previous day. Our company had about 5% of the market in Ontario and every single day there was several awful stories of shattered bodies and lives. The 150K cutoff was so that I didn't have to bother with deaths since the death benefit payout at the time was 100K.

Partly as a consequence of that daily good morning mindfuck I haven't driven a car in about 10 years. I am unwilling to trade the possibility of killing other people for a bit of purported convenience.
posted by srboisvert at 2:17 AM on December 3, 2005


Main point that we should discussing here is that almost all road deaths are preventable.

The swedes have established zero vision:


In 1997, Sweden’s parliament adopted Vision Zero, a bold new road safety policy based on four principles:

1. ethics: human life and health are paramount and take priority over mobility and other objectives of the road traffic system;

2. responsibility: providers and regulators of the road traffic system share responsibility with users;

3. safety: road traffic systems should take account of human fallibility and minimize both the opportunities for errors and the harm done when they occur; and

4. mechanisms for change: providers and regulators must do their utmost to guarantee the safety of all citizens; they must cooperate with road users; and all three must be ready to change to achieve safety.


Most of the deaths are caused by traffic that could be easily prevented with a public transportation system. (For example, trains can be designed virtually accident-free.)

Reliance on cars is a choice, not a must.
posted by hoskala at 3:59 AM on December 3, 2005


If more people die from car accidents than from terror attacks it may well be that there are more cars on the road at any given time than there are terrorists actively trying to kill people at any given time.

Now: how many people die from poor health that might have been saved or prevented by a decent health coverage for all citizens? How many die from poor nutrition? Guns? etc etc
posted by Postroad at 4:45 AM on December 3, 2005


I posted this here a couple years ago as one of my first posts, and got thoroughly trounced by that hateful evanizer. It was a bad post, but the idea was similar.
posted by crunchland at 4:51 AM on December 3, 2005


well duh. people are irrational. good luck.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:44 AM on December 3, 2005


If more people die from car accidents than from terror attacks it may well be that there are more cars on the road at any given time than there are terrorists actively trying to kill people at any given time.


True... but there are more trees in the world than either cars or terrorists. And they're relatively benign, save the for the freak wind-storm accident here and there.

There's something intrinsically destructive about the consumer car. the reason this isn't talked about up on high is the same reason the terrorists are talked about so much. If everyone is talking about how dangerous car culture is (and it is - the study that started all this doesn't take in to account smog deaths, habitat destruction, health impacts of suburban sprawl), it's hard to get them riled up about invading countries for the oil to feed that culture.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:47 PM on December 3, 2005


"How many people were killed" is not the one and only standard to use to determine resource allocation. If it were, then the Three Mile Island "disaster" would have had about 0 impact on perceptions, and decisions, about the use of nuclear power.

People are accustomed to the threat of death from car crash. They are not accustomed to the threat of thousands of deaths in a day as a result of terrorists crashing planes into buildings. I'll concede the point that some people have hyped the threat from terrorism for their own political/ideological reasons. But that doesn't mean that people weren't genuinely scared, apart from hype, by the events of Sept. 11.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:39 AM on December 4, 2005


« Older Quebec Political Cartoons   |   Mortal Kombat vs Street Fighter 2 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments