 |
 |
In a message dated 9/6/02 8:50:59 PM, [log in to unmask] writes: << I suspect that PSamuel might be one of those who put this high level of saying they didn't see down to "not wanting to take responsibility". >> No regardless of issues of responsibility we need to make our roads safer. We are bound to have drivers of very varying ability and we should do stuff that makes it safer for the poor drivers because they are always going to be with us - if I might coin a variant of a phrase. But let's not waste our energies on marginal gimmicks like DRLs. We DO know how to dramatically improve road safety - get more of our traffic off surface arterials and onto motorways, a term I use to encompass freeways/parkways/expressways/tollroads - where incidentally DRLs are quite superflous. Motorways have 8.3 fatalities per billion vehicle-miles traveled versus 18.4 fatalities for non-motorway type roads in the US. We know they have the same types of drivers and the same vehicles, so there are no sample problems, as with DRLs and other new devices on new cars. The percentage difference is dramatic not something around the level of statistical significance. We know we can halve road deaths by putting traffic on grade separated access controlled roads. Only 30 percent of our VMT is on motorways. If we could get that up to 50 percent by building a lot more motorways we could save over 5,000 lives a year. Our dilletantish safety establishment won't even discuss this issue of motorways being safer roads, and prefers to dabble in a whole set of minor gimmicks like DRLs. They are not serious about getting results. P Samuel