From: Benjamin.Kubelsky@verizon.net   
      
   On 6/21/2014 8:59 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > On Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:01:35 PM UTC-4, spsffan wrote:   
   >   
   >> Also, I daresay that fatalities were considered more of a "cost of   
   business" back in the 1950s than today. They used to just sweep up the mess   
   and say "too bad". Now, they actually report fatalities on the news!   
   >   
   > No, decades ago they certainly made the newspapers, including grisly   
   pictures of the crash scene.   
      
   They did in the case of spectacular, grisly multi-car crashes. The day   
   to day non-spectacular traffic fatalities (we must have several a day   
   here) most certainly were not broadcast on television news in the 1960s   
   and 1970s. I was here and I was watching. They may have had a two   
   sentence blip in the local paper on page 14, but it was a case of dog   
   bites man, not "Oh my God! Look A That!"   
      
   For similar media behavior, see, "lost children".   
      
   >   
   > Safety has been a big issue in the automotive world since at least the   
   1930s, maybe even earlier.  A common theme for newspaper articles.  Vehicles   
   were continually improved with better safety--back then it was improved tires   
   (early tires were terrible)   
   , better brakes, safety glass, and body construction.  Roads were improved as   
   new ones were built or old ones rebuilt with better drainage, width,   
   visibility; but this was expensive.  Driver education was improved--at some   
   point years ago they introduced    
   driver's ed in schools and AAA had courses to give professional instruction.    
   Enforcement was improved.   
   >   
   > By the way, transit companies lead the way in the 1920s for better   
   pedestrian safety, such as crossing in crosswalks and not jay walking.  They   
   organized better safety for school children leaving school.   
   >   
   > But the flip side was that safety cost money and people didn't want to pay   
   it.  Heck, in the google streetview example I posted above, those roads only   
   had a tiny curblike median strip until about 1980, when a 'jersey curb' was   
   installed.  Today, lots    
   of busy highways have no median strip at all.   
   >   
   > Studebaker came out with seatbelts circa 1955.  No one wanted them.  Ever   
   after seatbelts were mandated in 1968, it took _years_ before motorists would   
   wear them, and even today plenty refuse to.   
   >   
   > In the roads newsgroup, you will see many vehemently demanding higher speed   
   limits.  In the 1950s, they sued Robt Moses demanding he raise his parkway   
   speed limits.  Moses lost.   
   >   
   > On crowded roads, higher speeds lead to more crashes of more severity.    
   Speed demons say the fatality rate is down, but ignore the crash rate or   
   damage cost.   
   >   
      
   The fatality rate per passenger mile is way lower than it was decades   
   ago. Owing to vastly increased passenger miles traveled (even with more   
   fatalities, far fewer per passenger mile traveled) and safer cars and   
   safer roads.   
      
   When traffic permits, speeds are up. I understand. I feel far, far safer   
   at 70 in my 1995 Toyota Camry than I would have in a 19 year old 1955   
   Chevy. Newer cars (AND light trucks) are far more agile, on average than   
   those from the era when the interstate highway system was designed. Just   
   the advances in tire technology go a long way towards that.   
      
   The fact that most people are idiots who don't know how to drive is not   
   relevant. This was always true. People don't change. Technology does.   
      
   Cheers,   
      
   DAvid   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)