Arithmetic of Risk

First have a minimum IQ requirement for receiving a driver's license. Add in a test of the driver's ability to multi-task. If you test high, you could get a license allowing you to talk on the cell phone while applying makeup and swatting at the kids in the back seat. Test low and you are only allowed to do one thing in the car, drive.

Sent by Tom In Juneau | 3:53 PM ET | 08-06-2007

I have yet to hear leaders talk about and invest on public transportation. If more people were using buses, subways and trains instead of driving, the figures would be different. You can read, use a computer, talk on the phone or whatever you want if you are using public transportation, so why can't we just take the European model?

Sent by Sally from Ohio | 3:55 PM ET | 08-06-2007

Mr Easterbrook brings idiocy to a new level. He seems to be just a guy who has a lot of prejudices that he blames for accidents without any real evidence. It isn't cell phones, it is drivers who are distracted for ANY reason. Are we going to outlaw radios, CD's, talking to the person next to you, looking at scenery, ad billboards...it just gets silly. Overly aggressive, pushy drivers are more prone to accidents, not immigrants.

It would be nice if people would quit pretending that there is scientific evidence for their personal biases.

Sent by George from Oregon | 3:55 PM ET | 08-06-2007

Always view with suspicion anyone's comments when they are full of "there have been studies done", but doesn't have the specifics.

We are not "in denial" about traffic accidents. We spend BILLIONS every year to improve highways and vehicles. The actual number of people killed each year is about the same as it was twenty years or so ago, in spite of a 45% increase in population.

Mr. Esterbrook babbles on about horsepower. So what! Speeding in an underpowered cr is much more dangerous than with a normally powered car. Quite honestly, I've saved my butt more times by hiting the accelerator than by hitting the brakes. It would be most interesting to see the data that, he says, directly relates the horsepower capability of an engine, rather thaqn the instantaneous horsepower delivered, to fuel consumption; his assetion is counter to rationality.

Ultimately, one of the big reasons we are more responsive to, for example, a plane crash (or bridge failure) than to auto accidents is that people believe that, in a car, they have some control over their own fate.

Sent by Richard Cole | 4:03 PM ET | 08-06-2007

I agree with Tom, George and Richard. Sally has a point as well, but in rural areas, mass transit will never eliminate driving. It is unfortunate that your guest was so uniformed. Yes, there are problems on the road, but they will not be fixed by making laws based on prejudices, whether they involve people that do not look like you, or cars that go faster than yours, or whether or not you can see a phone in the other guy's hand.

As far as the bridge failure goes, I wonder if more people have been killed over the years in accidents on that bridge that were killed when it fell down. It was definitely a stressful stretch of road to drive.

Sent by Robert Bottger | 4:55 PM ET | 08-06-2007

Speeding in itself, though dangerous, is not as dangerous as the speed
*difference* that occurs when many people are doing ten,fifteen,twenty, or more mph over the limit and one person is obeying the speed limit.

Sent by Nicholas | 8:51 PM ET | 08-06-2007

We are only afraid of things we do not percive to have any control over. That is why we go crazy over the latest out break of E.coli but are not concerned to get into a car. Which causes more deaths? We spend billions of dollars trying to make ourselves safe from thing that pose little risk and ignore things that pose greater risk only because we are afraid of things we think we have no control over. John Stossel did a news special on this 10+ years ago. Seems things never change.

Sent by Sara Savary | 9:56 PM ET | 08-06-2007