Here’s 18,000 reasons why gov’t regulations work

“Government regulation” is a bad thing, or so I’m told. It handcuffs American business, drives jobs overseas, robs us of our basic freedoms and is somehow responsible for the career of Kim Kardashian, just to mention a few of its evil consequences.

I get all that. Nobody likes rules. This is America, sweet land of liberty, the land of the open range and the open highway.

Born to be wild. Rebels without a cause. Don’t tread on me. I’m all in.

But something puzzles me. According to numbers released just this week, our nation’s highways are safer today than they have ever been. Last year, 32,310 people were killed in traffic accidents. That’s a lot, but it’s the lowest number recorded since 1949, when we started counting such things.

The rate of highway fatalities has also dropped significantly, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As recently as 1994, the fatality rate for each 100 million vehicle miles traveled was 1.73; by 2011, that rate had been sliced down to 1.09 per hundred million miles traveled.

The benefits of that 37 percent reduction have been enormous, as the chart below documents. The blue line shows the actual number of highway fatalities each year from 1994 to 2011; the red line shows the number of fatalities that would have occurred if we had allowed the fatality rate to remain at 1994 levels.

traffic

See the difference between the blue and red lines? That represents some 18,000 lives saved in 2011 alone.

Now how was that achieved? You could argue, I suppose, that we Americans have somehow become saner, more adept drivers. I would then volunteer to take you on a rush-hour tour of Atlanta’s interstates. You would probably survive the experience; your argument, however, would not.

So what explains such a dramatic improvement? As hard as it may be for some to admit, those 18,000 lives were saved almost entirely because of government regulation. (And if you started the chart even earlier, say around 1970 with passage of the National Highway Safety Act, the number of lives saved would easily double or triple.)

Over the years, government regulations have mandated the installation of seat belts, and then the use of those seatbelts. They have mandated air bags as standard equipment and then the engineering of crash-resistant passenger compartments. They now require the use of car seats for infants and young children.

Government has lowered the blood-alcohol level used to define drunken driving, and raised the penalties for violating those restrictions. It has established nationwide standards on highway design, safety barriers, etc. Requirements and training for teen-aged drivers have been tightened as well.

That government regulation has not come without cost. Air bags, for example, aren’t cheap. The automakers fought like hell for years against the requirement that they become standard equipment. And at times, the rules can feel like a personal imposition. I confess to driving around town sometimes without my seat belt buckled, just because it feels better not to be confined. Not too bright, maybe, and not legal, but …

But let’s be serious about what’s at stake: When Benjamin Franklin observed that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” I’m pretty sure that he was referring to restrictions a little more profound than a seatbelt law.

I define liberty by my ability to think what I like and say what I like and read what I like and go where I like. Wearing a seatbelt is not an infringement on my basic liberty, not considering the lives that law has saved and will save in years to come. Likewise, I don’t believe that requiring automakers to install life-saving equipment, or forcing them to recall defective products, is an infringement on their economic freedom. It’s just common sense.

Government regulation, in other words, is a neutral term. Unnecessary regulations, outdated regulations, regulations that give an unfair economic advantage to one group over another — they have no legitimate place in the law. But in a metaphoric as well as literal sense, regulations also allow us to barrel 80 mph side by side down the highway of life without doing serious harm to each other.

And that’s a good thing.

– Jay Bookman

348 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

May 9th, 2012
1:13 pm

I got 18,000 problems but gov’t regulation ain’t one.

:)

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:13 pm

responsible for the career of Kim Kardashian

Regulations caused this?………”BURN THEM!”

JKL2

May 9th, 2012
1:15 pm

Or it could be because cars are safe and our medical teams are better. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Democrats luvs them some regulations…

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:15 pm

And if you do a little research you will find the name of the GREAT AMERICAN who played significant roles in getting some of those changes Jay discusses passed.

Here’s a hint: he pi$$e$ off Democrats every time he runs for President!

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:17 pm

Yep government regulation has saved lives. At what cost?

The average new car costs $30,000 because of all the government bells and whistles required. Out of reach for many hard working Americans.

I have $300 billion reasons why regulations are bad, which is the estimated annual cost of all those wonderful regs. That’s $1,000 for every single breathing American and $3,000 per household. Every year.

Regs aren’t free. Just like tax cuts don’t produce more tax revenue on a net basis (in their current range).

Talking Head

May 9th, 2012
1:18 pm

Here’s 15.7 trillion reasons why gov’t sucks.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Grasshopper

May 9th, 2012
1:18 pm

So the new Mass. laws against Bake Sales are for the greater good then?

Got it…thanks Jay.

Jefferson

May 9th, 2012
1:18 pm

If a man can ride a motercycle, a man (adult) should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt or not. I would choose to wear one, but it should be a choice for me, not the insurance lobby and the GOP party in GA.

East Lake Ira

May 9th, 2012
1:18 pm

Your bias is showing again Jay.

How dare you use Blue for good results and Red for bad?

Liberal facist.

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:18 pm

I like big butts so I like Kim.

Jefferson

May 9th, 2012
1:19 pm

you folks that worship money are all alike.

arnold

May 9th, 2012
1:20 pm

Where I live there are inadequate to no zoning restrictions. Someone was recently able to get a permit to use his property to treat waste. Of course he is somewhat surrounded by others. A real sh***y example of no government regulation.

ty webb

May 9th, 2012
1:21 pm

true to form, citizens drive more responsibly, resulting in fewer fatalities, and Jay credits Big Government…”Big Government, saving us from ourselves”

emo

May 9th, 2012
1:21 pm

‘Or it could be because cars are safe ‘

I think that was the point of Jay’s article on why regulations can be good. Look at how the car makers are fighting a regulation to put backup cameras in all cars so people won’t run over children: too expensive, we can just put enormous mirrors on every car.

emo

May 9th, 2012
1:24 pm

‘The average new car costs $30,000′ That’s the average of all car sales, including luxury. Who says you can’t buy a car for $15,000 to 20,000 these days and get a good dependable one?

Tealiban Party

May 9th, 2012
1:25 pm

Curses to those life-saving, gas-use-lessening government regulations that we impose on the auto industry. Imagine how much more money the corporate overlords could make if they didn’t have to install airbags, or anti-lock brakes!

Jay

May 9th, 2012
1:27 pm

Just for old time’s sake, I’ll point out that jm is still full of bluster and devoid of facts.

Today, new cars are cheaper adjusting for inflation than they were in 1997, which is when the CPI data begins for that product. They are also much safer, quicker, longer-lasting, comfortable and fuel-efficient, and again, all for less money.

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:27 pm

Electric cars, driver less cars, hybrids, higher gas mileage cars, etc……… are happening because our President saved our auto industry.

barking frog

May 9th, 2012
1:27 pm

Every regulation does not
save lives but most cost
money.

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:28 pm

The average new car costs $30,000 because of all the government bells and whistles required. Out of reach for many hard working Americans.

Yeah, like everybody should have the freedom to buy and drive a Tata Nano, imported from India, if they choose to do so. If some jackass in a suburban or Peterbilt just happens to smash you and flatten you to the thickness of paper, who cares??? You still expressed your freedom to buy, own, and drive something that was obviously unsafe, but you’re an American and you can damn well do what you please….

:roll:

Normal Free, Plain and Simple

May 9th, 2012
1:29 pm

ALERT! ALERT!

Off topic, but a wake up call for the Democrat’s…

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Carville Warns Against Incumbent Complacency

Sounding a call to arms, political strategist James Carville is warning his fellow Democrats that they could lose the presidency to Republican Mitt Romney because of a lazy “incumbent mentality” that seems to be taking hold among party activists and donors.

“We’re a long way from having this thing in the bag,” Carville told CNN’s John King Tuesday. “It’s going to be a brutally tough election.”

In an opinion piece posted on CNN’s website, Carville was also blunt in his assessment of the match-up between Romney and President Barack Obama.

“My message is simple: WTFU. Translated — wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake,” he said, adding that recent polls showing Romney ahead or tied with Obama “are not that encouraging” for Democrats.

Carville also pointed to the elections in France and other European countries as clear evidence that incumbents are falling out of favor around the world.

And in a pointed reference to Obama, he said, “You can shoot five bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don’t think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second.”

“If we don’t get on the offense, reconnect with the American people, talk about how the middle class is in a struggle for its very existence, hold the Republicans accountable, and fight like the dickens, we are going to lose,” Carville said.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved

My $0.02

May 9th, 2012
1:29 pm

Jm
May 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Yep government regulation has saved lives. At what cost? I have $300 billion reasons why regulations are bad, which is the estimated annual cost of all those wonderful regs. That’s $1,000 for every single breathing American and $3,000 per household. Every year.

I personally think my life is worth more than the $1000 cost you cite. It is pretty obvious that you and your GOP ilk don’t think a life is worth that much (unless of course it is a Christian, heterosexual, ‘merican, business owning life….)

Mike

May 9th, 2012
1:30 pm

Anybody see the report in Investors Daily about how “red” states are in better financial shape than “blue” states?
Yes, red states whose leaders watch and manage their money, are in better financial shape than blue states that don’t always follow those practices. No kidding?

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:30 pm

“If we don’t get on the offense, reconnect with the American people, talk about how the middle class is in a struggle for its very existence, hold the Republicans accountable, and fight like the dickens, we are going to lose,” Carville said.

True.

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:31 pm

Whoops. Federal regs cost 5 times what I said. Or in other words $5,000 for every person and $20,000 for a family of four. That’s big money for working Americans.

“The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, a 3% real increase over five years, to about 14% of U.S. national income. This cost is in addition to the federal tax burden of 21%, for a combined cost of 35% of national income. One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay for or comply with federal laws and regulations, and new policies enacted in 2010 for health care and financial services will increase this burden.”

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:32 pm

mike,

Great.

So red states don’t need any more welfare.

Right mikey?

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:32 pm

NC’s new state motto:

The state where you can marry your cousin/sibling/parent, unless you’re the same sex!

My $0.02

May 9th, 2012
1:33 pm

My life is still worth more than $5,000.

Mick

May 9th, 2012
1:34 pm

**I confess to driving around town sometimes without my seat belt buckled, just because it feels better not to be confined. Not too bright, maybe, and not legal, but …**

I second that….very good column, tired of all the whining about regulations….if you don’t like them the frozen tundra awaits…

barking frog

May 9th, 2012
1:34 pm

getalife
see. you must work harder.
willard’s winning.

Mike

May 9th, 2012
1:35 pm

At least it would appear they are trying to get to that place, Getalife.

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:35 pm

And jay’s 1:27 ignores the fact that wages haven’t kept up with inflation and therefore the cost of the car has increased relative to wages.

Just for old times sake.

Of course when it suits him he’ll point out the stagnant wages and blame republicans.

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:37 pm

frog,

I watched the Clinton special on PBS and it was the same thing happening today.

The gop did the same thing they did with Clinton except our President passed his health care plan.

American politics has not change one bit .

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:37 pm

true to form, citizens drive more responsibly, resulting in fewer fatalities, and Jay credits Big Government…”Big Government, saving us from ourselves”

Not entirely correct…

I’ve been trying to find the number of crashes in total versus fatalities, and I came across this information. It’s a bit dated, but it does not quite give the appearance that people are driving safer.

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States — one death every 13 minutes.

In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.

In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

Going by those stats, the number of accidents increased almost every year while the number of fatalities decreased. I’ve been trying to find stats directly from the NHTSA to verify that. If I can find direct stats, I’ll post them.

Uh Oh

May 9th, 2012
1:37 pm

I say to heck with regs

History shows us how well corporate America does in terms of the consumer, environment, etc without them

never mind…………

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

May 9th, 2012
1:38 pm

full of bluster?

is that what they are calling it now?

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:38 pm

Mike,

Most passed a balance the budget amendment.

We did it before with President Clinton but the gop blew it.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:39 pm

which regulations you folks want to get rid of?

The one that keeps fertilizer plants from dumping their sewage in your creek and, well, on your lawn?

The regulations that post a restaurant inspection score? Don’t care what you are paying for there?

The regulation that keeps others from smoking in the next cubicle over?

The one that puts signs on bathroom doors saying which sex it’s for (with a symbol and in braille)?

The regulation that says its unlawful for you boss to demand you clock out but continue working after your shift is over?

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:40 pm

And jay’s 1:27 ignores the fact that wages haven’t kept up with inflation and therefore the cost of the car has increased relative to wages.

Sounds like a failure of the PRIVATE sector to allow wages to keep pace with inflation or to allow wages to increase worth a damn anyway. However, in the eyes of the blind, it’s all because of government regulations….

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:41 pm

“American politics has not change one bit ”

Jay’s Lugar post attempts to suggest otherwise. You might want to check with jay about that.

(ir)Rational

May 9th, 2012
1:41 pm

So I realize Finn already said this, but if government (regulations or otherwise) is responsible for Kim Kardashian’s career, we have a much larger problem than I thought and we need to start over entirely.

Joe Hussein Mama

May 9th, 2012
1:42 pm

Jm — “I have $300 billion reasons why regulations are bad, which is the estimated annual cost of all those wonderful regs. That’s $1,000 for every single breathing American and $3,000 per household. Every year.”

If I knew on December 31 that I was going to die next year, but that government regulations would create a situation whereby I could live, I’d cough up that grand. I bet you would, too.

Stonethrower

May 9th, 2012
1:42 pm

“the fact that wages haven’t kept up with inflation and therefore the cost of the car has increased relative to wages.”
Careful there Jm or you’re gonna back youself into a corner!

Normal Free, Plain and Simple

May 9th, 2012
1:42 pm

Well…at least the Government hasn’t made air bag vests mandatory for bikers…

Uh Oh

May 9th, 2012
1:42 pm

Monsanto: Anninston, AL……….. ENOUGH SAID

I guess those who want to overlook their deceit, lies and propaganda can always say the employ people. We will just look past the lives impacted for those employed or living close to that plant. Right?

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:43 pm

Bro
Wage growth gas been low because of poor worker skills and healthcare cost increase pass throughs due to underpayment from Medicare and bad tax policy. Not the fault of biz.

(ir)Rational

May 9th, 2012
1:43 pm

Granny – full of bluster?

is that what they are calling it now?

It almost has the right letters, just the wrong order. :)

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:44 pm

jm,

You finally used term limits on lugar.

Congrats.

curious

May 9th, 2012
1:45 pm

Regulations are just like people; some are good and some are bad.

We don’t need more Love Canals or Thalidomide. At the same time, we could all probably get along better if a few thosand pages of the tax code went away.

kayaker 71

May 9th, 2012
1:45 pm

So Bozo and the Democrats are going to have to go to Charlotte, NC this summer and have their convention in the middle of a bunch of tobacco spittin’, gun totin” Bible thumpers who don’t seem to agree with old hairless Joe. Bozo is finally going to define his stand on gay marriage and get off of the fence but going to NC amid all of those hicks must not sit well for those well informed and upper crust limousine liberals from the NE. They might have to mix a bit with working America.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
1:45 pm

As Jay noted, the domestic auto companies’ record is clear: vigorously fight every new regulation. Use the same arguments when new regulations are proposed. When the new requirements have been in effect for a few years, begin an ad campaign showing how great your cars are now.

About a page of comments and none of the regular suspects have posted on how those 18,000 lives saved interfere with the free market?

To all those publishing on how much those regulations ‘cost.’ How about telling us the rest of the story and telling us what costs we would have incurred if the regulations had not been implemented, hmmmm? The information’s there. Think you can find it?

getalife

May 9th, 2012
1:46 pm

I was involved in several accidents before I started using seat belts.

It was not government.

It was my dead friends.

Mick

May 9th, 2012
1:47 pm

normal

Right now is not the time to panic, after the conventions is when all this comes into focus. It’s that 90 day period where elections are won or lost – witness mccain/palin…

Erwin's cat

May 9th, 2012
1:49 pm

I wonder how the new CAFE standards will effect those numbers?

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:49 pm

Stonethrower

Just the facts pal. Liberals, not so much fact oriented.

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:49 pm

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811401.pdf

Jay

Exhibit #2 would show that injuries have steadily been reduced when compared to the number of accidents, but not necessarily fatalities. The recent drop in fatalities also coincides with a drop in the number of accidents. Also, Exhibit #26 shows the number of lives saved because of safety restraints and helmet laws. That number appears to have peaked in the mid 2000’s and is dropping. I’d only have to give you a half true for crediting regulations for those reasons. Seems that driver behavior also factors into the numbers.

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:51 pm

Wage growth gas been low because of poor worker skills and healthcare cost increase pass throughs due to underpayment from Medicare and bad tax policy.

You know the old saying about excuses, right??? Although, I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you don’t think the private sector can do any wrong at all.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:51 pm

How are capitalists going to sell their goods to dead people? These regulations keep people alive so they can buy more and more goods to help our economy.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
1:52 pm

My earlier post referenced domestic auto makers fighting regulations, including seat belts.

Seat belts became mandatory on US cars in 1969.

Saab began installing them in 1958. Of course, they began as an aircraft company, so they can be forgiven for thinking the average driver has a modicum of smarts in understanding that when you’re moving 75 feet per second and hit a steering wheel or windshield that you just might get killed.

Erwin's cat

May 9th, 2012
1:53 pm

Bro – USDOT needs to learn how to make a graph…I can’t believe they published pages of just numbers

Adam

May 9th, 2012
1:54 pm

But… but… NUMBER OF REGULATIONS BAD… CON SMASH!

Paul

May 9th, 2012
1:54 pm

1968 for lap belts for all seats, shoulder belts for front. Not 1969.

curious

May 9th, 2012
1:55 pm

The more dead people, the less drain on Social Security amd Medicare. We only need to figure a way for them to become dead before age 62.

Eliminate healthcare, unless you can pay in cash.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
1:55 pm

Erwin’s cat

“I wonder how the new CAFE standards will effect those numbers?”

The same arguments were used when earlier CAFE standards were proposed.

Jay’s chart provides the answer.

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:56 pm

EC

It’s probably due to a combination of the paperwork reduction act and budget cuts…. :)

Erwin's cat

May 9th, 2012
1:58 pm

Paul…what arguments?

I’m just wondering out loud

Adam

May 9th, 2012
1:58 pm

You could argue, I suppose, that we Americans have somehow become saner, more adept drivers

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*deep breath*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Joe Hussein Mama

May 9th, 2012
1:58 pm

K71 — “Bozo is finally going to define his stand on gay marriage and get off of the fence but going to NC amid all of those hicks must not sit well for those well informed and upper crust limousine liberals from the NE. They might have to mix a bit with working America.”

I dare you to tell a member of the United Mine Workers of America that he’s not part of “working America.”

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 9th, 2012
1:59 pm

A Con is blogging “I hate government regulations” as the blogger behind them’s car slams into their rear end..

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:59 pm

Given the cost of an auto from a foreign country with little regulation, adjusted for wage differentials, it’s fair to say that about 55% of the cost of a basic car model is the result of government compliance

Some of it is value add, other pieces, not so much.

ty webb

May 9th, 2012
2:00 pm

or we could model our transportation regulations after the Amish…even fewer fatalities.

Thomas

May 9th, 2012
2:01 pm

Pretty wild stuff- traffic fatalities went down when the great recession started- hmmmm come on 2 brain cells work for me here.

Adam

May 9th, 2012
2:03 pm

Peadawg: I got 18,000 problems but gov’t regulation ain’t one.

:lol:

I love it.

Jay

May 9th, 2012
2:03 pm

So Bro, you don’t believe that regulations helped to reduce the number of accidents? Is that your argument? You believe that people today are somehow better drivers than 20 years ago?

If so, I disagree. National standards for highway design, signage, exit ramps, etc., tougher drunk-driving laws, laws requiring states to report speeding tickets to each other, etc., all have had an effect.

I think there’s a given level of competence, or incompetence if you will, behind the wheel that holds steady over time. People — especially large numbers of people — don’t change their basic traits.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
2:04 pm

Erwin’s cat

I know – it’s a discussion.

Arguments in the past were along the lines of “government is mandating cars average 18 miles per gallon (1978). That’s insanity. To get that kind of mileage, all we’ll be able to buy are lightweight, small death traps and people are going to die when they get hit by larger cars.”

The same arguments, almost word for word, get resurrected each time there’s a proposed increase. Happened just recently with the 2009 standards.

Jm

May 9th, 2012
2:04 pm

Hmm fatality drops way off as tue recession begins

Must have been due to some faaaaantastic new regulations that were put in every single car to cause such a drop, new and used

Or it could be the fact that Americans drove fewer miles, which has nothing to do with regulation

This is another bookman major fail

Jay go determine fatality per highway mile driven, then you have something to discuss

It should still look good. But will exclude exogenous stuff from your silly blog post. And whether $8,000 per new car is worth a the safety improvement is subject to debate.

TBone

May 9th, 2012
2:05 pm

Hey maybe all of the nonharmful regulations have led to higher fuel costs which keep people off of the roads so they aren’t whacking each other with zeal.

I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)

May 9th, 2012
2:05 pm

Jm

May 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Yep government regulation has saved lives. At what cost?

The average new car costs $30,000 because of all the government bells and whistles required. Out of reach for many hard working Americans.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I GLADLY pay the price for these regs.

ALL regs aren’t bad. Just as Jay says”Unnecessary regulations, outdated regulations, regulations that give an unfair economic advantage to one group over another — they have no legitimate place in the law”

Paul

May 9th, 2012
2:06 pm

Jm

“Given the cost of an auto from a foreign country with little regulation, adjusted for wage differentials, it’s fair to say that about 55% of the cost of a basic car model is the result of government compliance”

Ever thought of actually researching the actual costs and percentages?

G Mare 71( got the living' the red state BLUES!)

May 9th, 2012
2:08 pm

Who’s Kim Kardasian?

USMC

May 9th, 2012
2:09 pm

Brilliant Film playing at Landmark Midtown Tonight only: “Baseball, Dennis, and The French”

http://www.baseballdennisandthefrench.com

Great for political discourse between Conservatives and Liberals.

see you there :-)

Thomas

May 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

Silly silly stuff. Taxes go to protect the country and feed the poor therefore all taxes are good?

Of course some or maybe the majority of regulations are good so therefore we should double the regulations and we will all live to 140?

I like elephants, elephants like peanuts, therefore….

Play time on the Bookman blog to bad no milk and cookies.

Still think we should freeze student loan interest by a $1 tax on all blogs. Surely folks who have time to blog can afford a $1 a blog to help the poor students repay loans.

Normal Free, Plain and Simple

May 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

I bet fatalities will reduce proportionally to the rise in the cost of a gallon of gas…

Mr. Holmes

May 9th, 2012
2:11 pm

Or in other words $5,000 for every person and $20,000 for a family of four. That’s big money for working Americans.

Yeah, it’s a nice chunk of change, but set against the value of my daughter’s life? My wife’s? Hell, even mine? So I make the check out to U-N-C-L-E S-A-M, right?

I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)

May 9th, 2012
2:12 pm

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
1:28 pm
The average new car costs $30,000 because of all the government bells and whistles required. Out of reach for many hard working Americans.

Yeah, like everybody should have the freedom to buy and drive a Tata Nano, imported from India, if they choose to do so
_______________________________________________________________________

Bro, did you see the Top Gear BBC segment about the cars built in China? If not, you should check it out.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
2:13 pm

Jm

Based on the fact you drive a Suburban, I’m going to guess you have a spouse and a few kids.

Are you saying you’d give up all the regulation-mandated items on your vehicle in order to save a few thousand bucks? And you’d tell the wife and kids why you made the decision?

Remember in computing how much money you’d save you have to offset it by the higher gas costs you pay because of lower mileage you’d experience without the mpg requirements -

Don't Tread

May 9th, 2012
2:13 pm

“Unnecessary regulations, outdated regulations, regulations that give an unfair economic advantage to one group over another — they have no legitimate place in the law”

And yet, Democrats keep coming up with them, along with their usual assortment of unconstitutional stuff. Most times Republicans (you know, the party of “no”) are successful in blocking it, but every now and then something manages to get through. Then we have to have long drawn out legal battles that should be unneccessary in the first place (”campaign finance reform”, “health care reform”).

“When Benjamin Franklin observed that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” I’m pretty sure that he was referring to restrictions a little more profound than a seatbelt law.”

…such as the 2nd Amendment, which you people (who deserve neither liberty nor safety) attack constantly.

Jay

May 9th, 2012
2:14 pm

“Jay go determine fatality per highway mile driven, then you have something to discuss.

jm strikes again.

That’s exactly what the chart shows, jm. As I explained in the post, the fatality rate per 100 million highway miles driven is 1.09 in 2011; it was 1.73 in 1994. The difference in those two rates drives the difference that you see in the chart.

This is why I went to the ignore rule with jm: The inanity just keeps getting deeper and deeper, achieving levels seldom before seen.

It’s also why I’m now returning to that rule.

Paul

May 9th, 2012
2:14 pm

G Marfe

“Who’s Kim Kardasian?”

Count your blessings you don’t know and stop asking.

Jm

May 9th, 2012
2:14 pm

Jay would be thrilled apparently and bless the miracle of regulations if:

A. People stopped driving altogether
B. Thus resulting in further collapse of our economy to depression levels

Based on his analysis above

ragnar danneskjold

May 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

I am more likely to credit the depression, and fewer wasteful driving trips, than government regulation for the diminishing death toll. And, of course, even more lives have been lost due to the morass of FDA regulations, and the related delays in bringing new product to market.

Mr. Holmes

May 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

I think there’s a given level of competence, or incompetence if you will, behind the wheel that holds steady over time.

You didn’t even mention the additional distractions today that drivers 20 years ago didn’t need to worry about–cell phones, texting while driving, tons more dashboard bells & whistles, etc. Control for the fatalities caused by those and the safety gains are even more impressive.

Adam

May 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

Hmm fatality drops way off as tue recession begins

Must have been due to some faaaaantastic new regulations that were put in every single car to cause such a drop, new and used

If that were true, you would have seen the number go right back up when the recession ended.

Erwin's cat

May 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

Paul,
I’m still not getting into a Pinto…It’s the little gas misers that balance out the standards and I expect those are the same cars with a disproportionate amount of fatalities, but haven’t researched it…call it a guess..
That said, I feel somewhat safe tracking my late model Z w/o a cage…foolish I know, but that thing has more airbags than Carter has peanuts

Brosephus™

May 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

Jay

Looking at the statistics, I think it’s a combination of both reasons. The number of injuries steadily dropped from 1999-2009 based on the statistics I found, but the same didn’t happen with fatalities. Overall the number of accidents fluctuated with the latter part of the 2000’s showing an overall decline in the number of accidents. I just don’t think the statistics show a clear and decisive reason.

—————————-

That Guy

I haven’t seen that episode. I’ll have to search it out.

Adam

May 9th, 2012
2:16 pm

This is why I went to the ignore rule: The inanity just keeps getting deeper and deeper. It’s also why I’m now returning to that rule.

But Jay, why are you ANNOUNCING that you’re ignoring someone. What is the POINT of doing so? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jm-shedding light on jay's poor analysis daily

May 9th, 2012
2:16 pm

Your welcome :)

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 9th, 2012
2:16 pm

Now …….. if we could just have some regulations that do away with liberals.

ragnar danneskjold

May 9th, 2012
2:17 pm

Certainly an amazing chart – the predictors anticipated a 40% increase in deaths over that period. Suppose that, since that was the wild and crazy Clinton days, the predictors were forecasting a decline in morality/behavior, with more drug and alcohol related deaths?

Adam

May 9th, 2012
2:17 pm

Don’t Tread: And yet, Democrats keep coming up with them, along with their usual assortment of unconstitutional stuff

I suppose you have some examples, then?