There was a newspaper article about a study on motor vehicle deaths in Greece and how they have dropped to all time low levels. More specifically, they have dropped to pre 1974 levels, a time where there were 10 times less cars on the roads (500.000 vs 5.000.000 today)
Although this article doesn’t give many details, other studies have found that this decrease in deaths is due to the 40%+ decrease in vehicle miles traveled and a decrease in average vehicle speed (apparently in an effort to conserve fuel).
But one part of the article made me go :dubious:
This doesn’t look like a sound reasoning to me. My opinion from reading these numbers would be that police presence contributes little to road safety. Besides, there’s a point where you reach diminishing returns. You can increase police presence twofold and realize only a 5% further reduction on road accidents.
There are so many factors involved with motor vehicle deaths that this conclusion doesn’t even qualify as nonsense. To begin with: cars are enormously safer in every respect compared to what was on Greece’s roads in 1974. Many southern and eastern European nations permitted cars that may as well have used a Russian Roulette pistol for a starter; even more standard cars were death traps compared to modern ones.
ETA: The starting point would be to compare the number of motor vehicle accidents and their severity.
Not “'nuff said”, because that’s not even the claim here. Lower traffic death rate correlated with lower police presence. The claim is that increasing police presence would have made the death rate even lower still.
You don’t even need the but clause unless you’re setting out to prove undesirability. Yes, faster emergency response and better medical care would reduce vehicle fatalities - at a guess, the evolution of that life care from 1974 until now in countries like Greece was huge.
Do they have speed cameras and red light cameras in Greece? With the increasing reliance on automated enforcement of traffic laws, there’s less need for actual police presence on the roads, while the level of enforcement is much higher than the lottery of police traffic stops.
Both directions of the discussion about levels of traffic law enforcement are nonsense until you establish that factor is in any way connected to the number of fatalities. Begin with the two major points above and when you’ve adjusted the number of fatalities over time using those changes, you can start wondering what other factors might apply, and why. I suspect you’ll find that enforcement is nearly irrelevant to the numbers.
It’s not off base per se, it is just based on a presumption rather than any data presented and the use of “leads us to believe” is poorly phrased.
The authors believe, as do many others, that greater policing leads to fewer motor vehicle deaths (getting drunk drivers off the road and preventing recklessness in general). They therefore conclude that deaths would have been reduced even more if police presence had not been decreased, especially in those areas where drunk and reckless driving might be most likely, such as holiday destinations.
Articles such as this one (pdf if you care) form the basis for that belief.
I routinely note what happens even when a cop car is going the opposite direction. Tailgaters tend to back off.
Numerous factors exist. Research also cited France where auto deaths also significantly dropped. Better roads, lower speed, safer cars, use of seatbelts, and more observed police were cited. But considered significant was a major change in attitude about alcohol. The study reviewed numbers for many European nations. A serious reduction in French ‘drinking and driving’ was cited as a the biggest reason for France’s quite sharp reduction in auto deaths.
Given the economic turmoil in Greece, I say it is related to the fact that fewer people are driving to/from work, and driving less overall…and thats just the Greeks who haven’t had their car repo’d yet.