Isn’t it time we did something about a major killer of Americans?
If you filled up a football stadium with one hundred thousand people, about ten can expect to die from this all American killer. This does not count the corollary deaths due to the use of this product. Government subsidizes our use of the product with our tax money and the lobby for the industry is a powerful voice in Washington.
Even appearing to be indifferent to the fate of these companies can deeply harm a Presidential candidate. Ask Mitt Romney. Owners demand the ability to use this product in ways that we know will increase fatalities and we do not care.
Many of the deaths would be avoidable with greater regulation, the end of government subsidies for the use of this product, and much stricter regulations about use. We require a license, but give them away easily. Testing is ineffective. Countries very much like our own have rates of death half or one third our own. Australia’s death rate is one half. The United Kingdom death rate is one third.
Traditional Americans have integrated it into the myth of what it is to be an American. We have even written romance songs about the automobile.
Forget guns for a minute (if we can). Why don’t we regulate and supervise driving more heavily in the United States? We subsidize building roads with tax money contributing to urban sprawl and delay in the use of public transportation. Americans drive because we want to do so and have created a culture where we have to do so.
The use of energy, the pollution, and the waste are obvious. We also die in our cars. Kids die, suicides happen, and all so we can maintain the automobile culture we have. There is little evidence that either party will change this and no big cry to up the speed limit again even though “55” probably did save lives.
Why not? We have chosen to accept a certain level of risk because we like the lifestyle. For now, Americans like being able to drive when and where they want. We allow very young adults and some children to drive despite the heightened risk of accidents to those drivers. We are very hesitant to take away the “right” to drive from older Americans.
Americans have designed communities where walking or other forms of transportation that are safer are hard to use and we like those communities.
My point is not to defend those choices. They are contentious. We pick some goods, the freedom of the car, and give up other goods, greater safety. Most Americans do not want a government big enough to regulate our use of automobiles. We resent the traffic regulations we have and fines and punishments for infractions could be much higher, but good luck running on that platform. For a long time, we made light of drunk driving and slapped such drivers with small fines and let them keep driving. We became convinced by lobbying groups that this was bad, passed tough sentences on drunk driving, and this contributed to a falling death rate on the roads.
Why not get serious about speeders?
Christianity gives us some moral guidance on the “big issues” of daily living, but it does not make prudential judgments for us. We could choose to live in a much safer society without the same “right to drive.” We choose to put up with higher risk and drive.
Maybe we should not. Maybe we should. Let’s not pretend one side has a lock on righteousness in the tradeoff.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In