Healing the symptoms by affecting the cause

by Steve Dupree

If you heard that starting tomorrow terrorists would be attacking any building over eight stories high with bombs until 50,000 Americans had died, would you change some of your behavior? Would you be reluctant to do business in skyscrapers?

What if it were McDonald’s? What if it were known that terrorists were planning to kill Americans in all 50 states in McDonald’s burger joints until the death toll reached 50,000? Would you still send your children there? Would you go yourself?

Is it the word “terrorist” that induces behavior-changing fear in you? Perhaps you think that is a pretty lame question, but, I think the basis for it is completely rational.

Remember back when Malvo and Muhammed were terrorizing the D.C. area? They shot (I think) 14 people and killed 13 of them. They had people all over the area, including Baltimore, Annapolis, and that corner of Virginia scared to leave their homes. If reports are accurate, many, many people altered their schedules and/or commuting behavior so as to diminish the likelihood that they would be exposed. Seemingly, such a move would be representative of a rational and reasonable mind, wouldn’t you agree?

Quick quiz: How many people died in that area from automobile crashes? I don’t know and, chances are, neither do you. Who is more dead, those killed in automobiles or those killed by terrorists?

In the Knoxville area, during same time as the terror reign of Malvo and Muhammed, there were slightly more deaths caused by automobiles than the 13 deaths by M & M. Keep in mind that from a population standpoint, the Knoxville area is approximately 10 percent of the size of the terror area. I know of no one who changed what they do or how they do it as a response to the deaths in the Knoxville area. Perhaps some individual(s) did, but it was clearly not any sort of large “movement.”

There are approximately 50,000 automotive-related fatalities in the United States every year. The number is remarkably stable given the increases in population and the resultant increase in traffic on the roads. Technology likely serves as the buffer that stops the number from increasing, but there is also no significant decrease. We have grown to accept this as a norm, as just a cost of doing business. To my way of thinking, this is idiocy. The 3,000 deaths on 9/11 sent this nation into a tailspin that some industries are still trying to recover from. You would have to multiply the 9/11 deaths by approximately 17 to get to the yearly national automotive death toll. I ask again, who is more dead, those in the towers or those in the cars?

Automotive death statistics are not kept secret. Why would an allegedly loving parent choose a living arrangement that increases the amount of time on the roads their kids have to spend? If they knew that 50,000 would be killed nationally in McDonald’s, would they make choices that would send their kids to McDonald’s frequently? Most probably not, so why do they choose a home in the suburbs? Oh, I know the rationale. “It is because the schools are better.” “It is to get away from the crime and danger of the inner city.” But the numbers don’t wash. There are far fewer deaths due to violence than those due to automotive incidents.

Of course, you don’t think it will happen to you or your family. Why? It doesn’t take a degree in statistics to understand that every time you drive or ride in a car, you increase your chances of being involved in a wreck. Decreasing the random chances of having a wreck is pretty simple. Make fewer trips, reduce the time spent in cars, and reduce the miles traveled. All will serve to cut the chances of having a wreck.

It isn’t rocket science. There is a high probability that someone reading this will experience the loss of a family member or close friend to an automotive incident at some point in the next few months. If it is you, will your choice to live where you must drive, and drive a lot, seem worth it? If it is one of your kids that is killed, will you still be glad that you chose a “good school” over one that they could have walked to (and still likely been alive)? I truly do not understand, so please, someone out there tell me, who is more dead—those killed by terrorists or those killed by automobiles?

Barring a miracle, another 50,000 Americans will be killed on the streets, roads, and highways of the nation in the next year. Will you offer your children, your wife, your husband for sacrifice on the altar of automotive worship? When you are making choices that will affect the time your family spends in a car and the number of trips they have to make, will you consider all the factors? Here’s a thought: if terrorists said they were going to kill 50,000 Americans in cars in the coming year, would it change your driving habits?

The old folks used to have a saying that seems perfect when I consider the national reaction to any “terrorist” related death to 50,000 automotive deaths a year. “Strain at a gnat. Swallow a camel.”

December 9, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 50 © 2004 Metro Pulse