The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

In truth the issue is much more complex than this simple-minded, agenda-driven analysis. Advancing safety technology has made the average new car safer, on balance, than its otherwise equivalent predecessor. But not all cars are "equivalent"-- and the presence or absence of a given piece of safety equipment is just one of many factors affecting motor vehicle fatality rates -- and cannot by itself account for the absence of the direly warned of post-repeal fatality upsurge that never took place.

There is, for example, clear evidence that higher speed limits can be safer when they supplant arbitrarily set, artificially low limits that cause traffic to flow unevenly. The old "double nickel" limit is a perfect case in point. The government unilaterally imposed this lower limit (as an energy conservation measure) that was 10-20 mph below the intended design speed of the Interstate system. This wasn't "safer" -- but it was frustrating, very much like having one's progress impeded on a crowded city street by an oblivious tourist who stops to window shop and refuses to make way for people on their way to work. People -- and cars -- jockey for position. Tailgating and sudden braking -- two things directly correlated with a greater likelihood of an accident -- become more common.

The point being, slower is not, ipso facto, safer. If it were, jumbo jets would only take off at 55 mph -- not 180 mph. Trains would never travel faster than 25 mph -- preceded by "safety crews" waving red flags and shouting warnings. We could all just sit on the porch and never move again. Or stay in our beds. That would be the "safest" thing of all.

The IIHS might just have to do a study.

But until they figure out a way to get money out of it, don't expect much.

topics:
Religion, Law, Energy