Comments about ‘Highway deaths on the run’

and Utah had how many last year? 289? This campaign has a ways to go...impossible, I say. What happens if it's your time to die and you are in a car?

every cell phone user? we cannot and will not achieve zero fatalities. i consider myself a safe law abiding citizen, but i do like to occasionally talk on the cell phone, eat a burger and even go without wearing a seatbelt while driving. i know, lock me up i must be a menace to society.

@Zero 3:35

Impossible? Yeah, realistically it probably is. But we also aim for "No Child Left Behind," zero drug abuse by students, etc. No need to be too cynical about it all. The way of a constructive citizen is to aim high, work hard, and move forward.

What if it's "your time to die"? OK, that's fine. But drive safely, and if you're supposed to die, the good Lord will find some other way to take you out.

"Cars also are safer ... Air bags, seat belts, child seats and other features keep drivers and passengers alive in accidents that would have been fatal in an earlier time."

Heard 'tother day 'bout a head-on collision between a ten-year-old F150 and a modern little "jelly bean" car.

F150 driver died.

No serious injuries for the several passengers in the l'il bitty car with its multiple airbags, crumple zones, etc.

"Aging baby boomers are taking their feet off the accelerator."

Yah.

A lot of social problems, from violent crime to speeding to general foolishness, track closely the percentage of the population that's male between 16 and 25.

In a take-off on a wise old stockbroker's "never confuse genius with a bull market," there's "never confuse tougher sentencing laws or better police work with an aging population."

I was always taught that "speed kills". This proves that we have been lied to. Since the 80 mph speed limit hasn't caused more deaths, maybe we should increase the speed limit to 80 mph on all appropriate freeways.

We should also remember that increasing safety standards for automobiles are due to the efforts of liberals, over the strenous objection of conservatives.

@Roland Kayser 11:03

Back that up.

I don't know details myself, but your statement sounds fishy since conservatives held power for much of the past 20 years, either in Congress, the White House, or both. Seems strange to say the liberals managed to end-run a conservative congress and/or executive veto authority to put those pieces in place.

Roland Kayser @ ll:03 appears to be full of it.

He needs to realize that most automotive safety improvements made in the last 20 years were not bills pushed by one party of the other. But instead were recommended and sponsorship encouraged by consumer advocacy groups. Or in some instances, such as the airbag, the introduction was actually started by the automotive manufacturers.

Sorry, Roland but your claim just doesn't stand up to historical facts.

Actually conservatives and the auto industry fought hard to prevent airbags from becoming mandated.

This is an irrational article. Driving is not safe. Period. Just look at the air quality. Driving is not some condition we have to accept. It's the result of automakers working with government so we would all need a car. It has drastically reduced our quality of life, increasing the pace of our lifestyle and physical danger exponentially. This feel-good nonsense is ridiculous. Death by automobile has no dignity. Whether it's 30,000 nationwide deaths a year or 50,000 they are all needless and therefore immoral. Wake up Deseret News.