Published: July 29, 2008 12:54 pm      

CURRAN: Why not just outlaw it all? Smoking ban talk is another control movement

Today marks the beginning of a new movement. Its goal is to save thousands of lives, including innocent children with no choice in being subjected to risk of injury and death.

Many heroic movements to save lives have come before. This movement is different due to its scope. If successful, the one proposal at the heart of the movement will reduce the risk of injury or death in this area, not by a fraction, but completely. Everyone interested in protecting lives must join together to prevent the deaths of more than 40,000 Americans annually.

Some will argue big government is dictating our lives. Some will say such a move will cripple the economy. What are such concerns in comparison to lives saved? Regardless of the concerns and consequences, driving must be banned immediately before the next needless death.

The principle behind this proposal is well established and accepted. Statistics drawn from studies show a risk of harm from an activity, therefore, the activity should be restricted or banned, or if it is shown a particular behavior can decrease the risk of injury or death it should be required by threat of arrest or seizure.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us: “In addition to the 15,383 lives saved in 2006 by seat belts, 2,796 lives were saved by frontal air bags, motorcycle helmets saved 1,658 lives, 21-year-old minimum drinking age laws saved 890 lives, and child restraints (child safety seats and lap/shoulder belts) saved 425 lives. An additional 5,441 lives would've been saved in 2006 if all unrestrained motor vehicle occupants involved in fatal crashed had worn their seat belts; and if all motorcycle riders had been helmeted, then an additional 752 lives would have been saved.”

The combined number of deaths claimed prevented by both already-in-place and proposed precautions only equal approximately 50 percent of all traffic fatalities. This strongly suggests that regardless of safeguards in place, a significant number of deaths will occur if the activity continues. If driving was eliminated, traffic fatalities would decrease by 100 percent!

The superiority of the argument for banning driving altogether is even more evident when considering many of the saved lived cited above are estimates. In the case of saying seatbelts or other measure did save lives, NHTSA is really counting times that it appeared, after an incident in which someone did not die, that if a precautions had not been taken, the individual maybe would have died.

In order to get to that 50 percent of traffic fatalities prevented, you must include those cases when lives would have been saved. This is similar to those saved, but takes an extra leap. The cited lives saved are only numbers, projects of what might be the case if some actions were taken, but they weren't, so we can only estimate.

“Eliminating driving would prevent all driving-related fatalities” is clearly more straight-forward than even these noble prior arguments to save lives with laws.

Our embracing of smoking bans further illustrates our grasp on the correctness of this thinking. The risks related to and deaths caused by tobacco smoke are even trickier to estimate, the science shakier, than traffic fatalities. The illnesses associated with smoking, such as cancer and heart disease, have many potential causes and many sufferers will have more than one risk factor. There is only so much certainty that can be had about which risk factor was the actual cause or contributor to the illness that caused the death, and again, when you get to how many people will or will not die from smoking in the future, those lives only exist on paper.

The risks of second-hand smoke are even less solid. All the cause-of-death complexities apply as above, only since there was less exposure to the smoke, even greater consideration must be given to the long list of potential risk factors as well as the possibly exponential effects of their interactions with each other. Virtually all lives saved by eliminating second-hand smoke exist only on paper. Last year's traffic fatalities were real people, every one.

Though we rightly embrace anti-smoking measures, and the connection between the smoke and death is more questionable, the enforcement of these measures is more difficult than enforcing a driving ban would be. Eliminating smoking requires telling the owners of private businesses and property what they and their guests can do. To prohibit indoor, private activity, it is necessary to enter the property and see if the activity is occurring.

Driving occurs primarily on public property. No violation is required to see if it is going on. Some helicopters, maybe some cameras, are about all you would need. One person smoking a cigarette is hard to pick out at a distance. A vehicle with noise and lights is harder to hide. It isn't practical to eliminate all buildings that smoking could occur in. Roads really wouldn't be that hard to demolish.

Gun control advocates have helped blaze the trail all those of conscience must now travel. These groups have long cited the numbers of gun deaths that would not have occurred if the right laws were in place. They've had the vision to understand highlighting child deaths would be particularly effective. These tactics are appropriate and the logic solid. However, some statistics show more young U.S. children die driving each year than from guns. Outlawing driving is the clear priority.

Together we can.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran always writes her columns while safely buckled into her desk chair, wearing a helmet. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com