PDA

View Full Version : terrorism deaths vs auto accident fatalities



SnakebyteXX
12-01-2005, 10:52 AM
Death toll from road accidents 390 times that from terrorism

Nov 30 6:18 PM US/Eastern

The body count from road accidents in developed economies is 390 times higher than the death toll in these countries from international terrorism, says a study appearing in a specialist journal, Injury Prevention. In 2001, as many people died every 26 days on American roads as died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it says.



Researchers led by Nick Wilson of Otago University, New Zealand, trawled through a US State Department database of deaths caused by international terrorism, and compared this with an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development database on road crash deaths among 29 OECD countries.

The study covered two years, in 2000 and 2001.

The authors acknowledge the widespread emotional, political and economic impacts of terrorism, but they also point out the enormous difference in scale between the two death tolls.

"Policymakers need to be aware of this when allocating resources to preventing these two avoidable causes of mortality," they say.


web page (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/30/051130231753.72wocvgo.html)

HiPockets
12-01-2005, 01:31 PM
Well I just have to reply to this post. In 1964 I was taking Speech and the project was to give a book report to the class. One student gave a report on the Viet Nam police action and the number U.S. soilders killed each year in Viet Nam. The speach teacher commented that it was equivalent to the number of deaths from auto accident in the State of Texas. An off the cuff remark in a rather matter of fact way. I was incredulus that one would minimize the deaths from combat (a "police action") by comparing that number to the number of deaths in auto accidents. My comment, or should I say my direct statement to the instructor was " they are not equivalent one being accidental, the other by avoidable conflict"

I was not an anti war activist in college and was rather insulated from the protest on many college campuses. In other words may only anti war statement. I say the same thing with your logic. How can you compare the two?

DebraLiStarr
12-01-2005, 02:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HiPockets:</font><hr>
I say the same thing with your logic. How can you compare the two? <hr /></blockquote>

HiPockets
I felt the same way when I read that. When people are fueld by a warped sense of reality and have an utter disdain for the military, they will make these comparisons. These are the same people that will vote for people that will drastically cut benefits for veterans without even thinking twice about it. They have no respect for the sacrifice, patriotism,or the veteran (or survivig family). They dehumanize it by attaching and comparing numbers and statistics to the ultimate sacrifice one can make for their country. Its sad, but these people are everywhere - freely exercising the rights that many have have fought and died for - yet they take it all for granted - while pointing fingers. Let's end the war on terrorism immediately and see how long it takes to experience another 9/11. When that happens, they will blame Bush for screwing up the war on terrorism. These are people that are trapped in a cycle of infinitely repetitive stupidity. No matter what happens, its somebody else's fault as they pass judgment from the sidelines. They have no viable solution to offer, just criticism and outrage. I was equally disgusted when I read that, but that's how some people think. I can't wait until 2008 when they will have the opportunity to save the world for us. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

BTW- New Zealand researchers? Who cares?

SnakebyteXX
12-01-2005, 03:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HiPockets:</font><hr> I was incredulus that one would minimize the deaths from combat (a "police action") by comparing that number to the number of deaths in auto accidents. My comment, or should I say my direct statement to the instructor was " they are not equivalent one being accidental, the other by avoidable conflict"

I say the same thing with your logic. How can you compare the two? <hr /></blockquote>

First things first: Welcome back! I've missed your posts.

Second things second: Let's get something straight here. I WAS NOT comparing the two. This was an article that I chose to post in the forum because when I read it I considered it to be thought provoking. For the record - I DIDN'T WRITE IT. For you to respond to the article as if I had written it is tantamount to taking the topic from the realm of objective intellectual discussion and making it personal. IE: You posted it therefore you MUST believe it - now DEFEND YOURSELF!

As to combat deaths due to terrorism? IE: Our soldiers dying in Iraq. That's a digression. The article makes no mention of deaths from combat but rather "...the death toll in these countries from international terrorism." which would include but not strictly be limited to the death toll due to combat.

For the sake of discussion, and inspite of the digression I will try and compare the two (death from combat versus death from auto).

The question you posted in that speech class long ago isn't quite as logical as you might think. In a strict sense combat deaths could be avoided by not going into a combat zone. Death from automobiles could be avoided by staying out of and away from cars. In another sense, many deaths in combat are just as accidental and random as deaths in cars.

In spite of the tendency by some to quantify or qualify death as 'heroic' or 'patriotic' or 'worth it' - when you're dead before your time - you're dead. In the long run it really doesn't matter all that much whether you died at the hands of a terrorist or at the wheel of your car - you're still dead.

I lived through the Viet Nam War and lost several of my boyhood friends to combat. That war is long over, but I still live in the same small town in which we all grew up. I've watched the now grey haired mother's of my dead friends mourn as the decades have passed. There's not one of them that I know of who feels that the painful vacuum created in their lives by the loss of their sons has been offset by the idea that their son's died in combat. Not one. What they feel and have felt day in and day out is the tragic loss of a loved one who never grew older - never got married and raised a family - never came home again for Christmas or Thanksgiving or their birthdays or kissed and hugged and held their mothers ever again. IMHO: Those combat deaths were just as senseless as any death by automobile and just as permanent.

Snake

wolfdancer
12-01-2005, 04:22 PM
Richard, an excellent reply....too often here we confuse the message, with the messenger.
I'll be watching out though for any turban wearing Yellow Cab drivers, when I'm crossing the street.

HiPockets
12-01-2005, 06:35 PM
Well snakewhatever I am not sure what worse, plagerism masked as intellectualism or just plain backpeddling.

Gayle in MD
12-01-2005, 07:15 PM
Nice post SnakebyteXX, and no truer words ever spoken. Makes you wonder how GWB could have cut funding for our veterans, and their survivors, when this war was certainly not a last resort decision. It breaks my heart to think how many must endure the loss of a child, a wife or husband, a Dad or Mom, so tragic.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
12-01-2005, 07:46 PM
Richard posts lots of interesting items that he finds on the internet.....I don't think he's ever tried to take credit as the author.
I've enjoyed reading some enough, to prompt me to thank him for bringing it to our attention.

HiPockets
12-01-2005, 07:57 PM
High fives for everyone. If you cut and paste enough articles from the internet (and don't credit the author) you can go to work for the New York Times or the New Republic. Take your pick.

SnakebyteXX
12-01-2005, 08:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HiPockets:</font><hr> Well snakewhatever I am not sure what worse, plagerism masked as intellectualism or just plain backpeddling. <hr /></blockquote>

I think plagerism masked as ANYTHING is worse. Back in the day I flunked more than a couple college students who thought they could get by with running it up the proverbial flagpole. Now, in the case of the post in question I'm all about apologizing if for whatever the reason you failed to notice that I linked the original passage to the actual article. If instead you're accusing me of plagurism in regard to my written response to you - we have a problem.

As to backpedalling? I pretty much know what that means but under normal circumstances one must first foreward pedal - no?

Hipockets, I have NO idea why you might want to get personal with me about any of this if indeed you do. I have nothing but the utmost respect for your intellect and your writing skills. However, in this case I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Regardless of any difference of opinion, let's keep it civil, shall we?

Snake

DickLeonard
12-02-2005, 10:35 AM
Debra, I have to disagrre with your thinking. I happen to consider Drunk Drivers and Reckless Drivers "Terrorists of the Road". Very few fatalities are caused by law abibing drivers.####

DickLeonard
12-02-2005, 12:41 PM
Gayle could you imagine what a nice windfall it would be if some Rep. sought to find the 9 Billion that is missing in Iraq and give it to the families of the fallen solders. They should have Dick Cheney head that Investigation. He knows how Haliburton operates it should take him a day or two.####

wolfdancer
12-02-2005, 01:23 PM
Funny.....but true

HiPockets
12-02-2005, 04:22 PM
"Regardless of any difference of opinion, let's keep it civil, shall we?" Snake

Snakester, it was not meant to be personal. It's just my natue (as the scorpion told the toad) to stir it up. No harm intended.

sack316
12-03-2005, 04:19 AM
maybe I'm just really too tired to be thinking clearly right now, but I am failing to see what the bickering/ contrast of opinions on the original post actually is.

The article itself doesn't seem to compare or contrast the value of life lost in auto accidents vs. terrorism and/or war. Nor does it say to exhaust fewer resources against terrorism (although I suppose to some it may appear to be implied). Personally I read it as being meant to raise awareness of how many lives are lost senselessly on the roads, and the need to put more resources into providing a higher level of safety on roadways in those 29 countries studied. I think the comparison of the two death tolls are used to show how massive the number of auto related deaths are by contrasting the number with something that we are all highly familiar with-- and NOT meant to say that one is any more or less significant than the other.

For example, the 2003 budget provided 8.8 billion dollars towards homeland security (every penny is well worth it and very necessary in my opinion), but surface transportation safety had a budget of 804 million. Now obviously how much is spent on the two as always a matter of opinion, and obviously homeland security and the war will cost a great deal more than anything else (as it should), but I think the whole original point was that if "x" number of lives are lost in this particular manner, then said manner should be given a higher level of attention towards prevention than it currently does.

Then again, as I said I am tired and may have misread the whole thing, but this is a very interesting and thought provoking thread... thanks all!

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-03-2005, 04:34 AM
Great idea, but let's not hold our breath on that one, LOL.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
12-03-2005, 07:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> maybe I'm just really too tired to be thinking clearly right now, but I am failing to see what the bickering/ contrast of opinions on the original post actually is.

<font color="blue">You're thinking clearly. The subject of the original post got hijacked and quickly transformed itself into a thread that included an accusation of plagerism by one respondant and subversion by another. One responder appeared to suggest that the mere mention of such contrasting statistical observations was somehow unpatriotic and a slam against those who have given their lives in defense of our country. Go figure.</font color>

The article itself doesn't seem to compare or contrast the value of life lost in auto accidents vs. terrorism and/or war. Nor does it say to exhaust fewer resources against terrorism (although I suppose to some it may appear to be implied).

<font color="blue">In a round about way it does. The study attempts to shine a light to some degree on the extraordinary role that social perception plays in public and governmental response to death. In this case death from acts of terrorism. It points out that based on statistics gathered from the US State Department database citizens in developed economies have a 390 times greater chance of dying in a car wreck than they do of dying at the hands of a terrorist.

Such observations are important because they raise the prospect that sensationalism driven by fear of dying can disproportionately influence political decisions and the commensurate distribution of economic resources.
</font color>

Personally I read it as being meant to raise awareness of how many lives are lost senselessly on the roads, and the need to put more resources into providing a higher level of safety on roadways in those 29 countries studied. I think the comparison of the two death tolls are used to show how massive the number of auto related deaths are by contrasting the number with something that we are all highly familiar with-- and NOT meant to say that one is any more or less significant than the other.

<font color="blue">Absolutely, one is NOT more significant than the other. The former has gotten the public's full attention and the latter has become an issue that many of us ignore. Maybe it's because we have come to accept death from auto accidents as a fact of life that we can't change? OTOH: The belief that deaths due to terrorism can be and should be curtailed if not totally eliminated remains a front burner issue in many of those developed economies (particularly ours). </font color>

For example, the 2003 budget provided 8.8 billion dollars towards homeland security (every penny is well worth it and very necessary in my opinion), but surface transportation safety had a budget of 804 million. Now obviously how much is spent on the two as always a matter of opinion, and obviously homeland security and the war will cost a great deal more than anything else (as it should), but I think the whole original point was that if "x" number of lives are lost in this particular manner, then said manner should be given a higher level of attention towards prevention than it currently does.

<font color="blue">Bingo! An average of forty thousand Americans are dying on our highways every year. IMHO: This is an insane number of largely unnecessary deaths. Here's a well written editorial regarding the need for that 'higher level of attention' you mention: US Highway Safety Targets and Achievements are Far Too Low (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050801_us-highway-safety-targets-are-too-low_op-ed.htm) </font color>

Then again, as I said I am tired and may have misread the whole thing, but this is a very interesting and thought provoking thread... thanks all!

Sack <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">Au contraire mon ami. You definitely had your thinking cap on and it shows. Good post Sack and right on the money.

Snake </font color>

HiPockets
12-03-2005, 04:28 PM
Snakester, a footnote with your origional post crediting the author would have cut out a lot of the flack..." "

"I don't think someone is following me but they probably are". /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

DickLeonard
12-05-2005, 06:05 AM
Gayle I saw on George Stephanopoulos two weeks ago that a 49 year old soldier died. I guess that means George could be taken back in the Guard. I wondered how many children he left behind. ####