Today Show quote

C

Catfishman

New member
NBC's Today Show aired this quote during a story about the 4 year old who was murdered in a road rage shooting.
66% of traffic deaths are caused by aggressive driving. 37% involve a firearm.
Click to expand...
It is an almost impossible statistic. I suspect the use a very broad definition of aggressive driving, most of which has nothing to do with road rage. Then, yes maybe 37% of actual road rage deaths "involve" guns.

Shouldn't someone be reprimanded for factually misleading the public be it purposefully or through incompetence?
 
The allegation apparently comes from this AAA study.

Now, let's bear in mind that the data was taken from a period ranging from January 1990 to September 1, 1996. The data is 20 years old, and it's not clear how it was collected.
 
From page 8 of the AAA 'study':

"Weapons Used by Aggressive Drivers
In approximately 4,400 of the 10,037 known aggressive driving incidents, the
perpetrator used a firearm, knife, club, fist, feet or other standard weapon for the
attack. In approximately 2,300 cases the aggressive driver used an even more
powerful weapon -- his or her own vehicle. And in approximately 1,250 cases the
aggressive driver used his or her own vehicle and a standard weapon like a gun,
knife, or club. No information was available for 1,087 of the cases reviewed.
Without question the most popular weapons used by aggressive drivers are
firearms and motor vehicles. In 37 percent of the cases a firearm was used; in 35
percent the weapon was the vehicle itself."

No idea how they come up with "37%" from that data...
 
Using those numbers, I can't get 37% at all, anywhere.

Something is "rotten in Denmark"....

What I see with the quote is one more example of what on TV is "commentary" and in other circles is called a "LIE".

20yr old data, highly suspect THEN, presented TODAY as if it were current fact?

I'd recommend NOT buying a bridge from these people, either...
:rolleyes:
 
The numbers cited fail to add up by 1,000, for a start. Presumably that's a typo.

From the statements and numbers presented, the percentage statistic cited is totally bogus.

It appears derived from the 1,250 events where both a weapon and the car were used in the same event, 37% perhaps involved a gun as the weapon and 35% involved only the car although the gun was also present. That's my tea leaf reading of the citation, anyway, and I'm likely totally bogus, as well.
 
It seems clear that the headline is misleading. The body of the text does not support the statement that "66% of traffic deaths are caused by aggressive driving. 37% involve a firearm." They are not looking at all traffic deaths. They are looking only at traffic deaths involving aggressive drivers -- and their working definition of "aggressive drivers" doesn't include all of what I would call "aggressive" drivers (i.e. those who drive too fast and/or carelessly, thereby creating the probability of accidents). Their working definition seems to encompass only drivers who deliberately and intentionally engage in some form of assault against another driver.
 
Hardly leaves room for the 55% killed by drunk drivers.

As for what all aggressive driving includes, not sure but if you are driving along at high speeds, and hit a legally parked car occupied by somebody listening to the radio with the key on who has been drinking, and you get killed, for statistical purposes, you were killed by a "drunk driver".
 
As kilimanjaro pointed out, we're looking at 37% of a very small number of incidents. That's 10,000 incidents over a period of 6.5 years, 37% of which are claimed to involve firearms in some capacity. The math comes out to about 570/year.

That's not a very high number. It's less than the total traffic fatalities for a single state.

Even so, the numbers are all wrong from the stats I've seen. Drunk driving, distracted driving, and weather-related conditions outstrip aggressive driving and/or road rage as causes of fatalities.

Furthermore, they seem to be deliberately confusing aggressive driving with road rage. They're two separate things. Aggressive driving is driving like a jerk. Think tailgating, horn-blowing, or cutting folks off.

Road rage is driving with the specific intent to cause harm. That's the person who's actively trying to run me off the road, or someone who deliberately strikes my vehicle.

In the second case, I might bring a firearm into the equation. The study seems to conveniently omit any mention of self-defense.

Honestly, if the antis are having to dig this deep to find material, they're really on the ropes.
 
Meanwhile there was that murder-suicide in California, a man drove his estranged wife and kids into a lake. What have they got to say about THAT?
 
Sad thing is, the same person will be preparing the news tomorrow.

I multiplied these numbers by the total US traffic fatalities. Turns out 7,700 people are shot to death in road rage incidents every year.

I think we should have our cars armor plated and consider AR-10s for car carrying.
 
If a traffic fatality involves a firearm then isn't that also aggressive driving? I'm so confused.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile there was that murder-suicide in California, a man drove his estranged wife and kids into a lake. What have they got to say about THAT?
Click to expand...

Actually, that was in Tempe, AZ.
 
I think this is the source of the made up "66%" statistic.

http://www.safemotorist.com/articles/road_rage.aspx

If anyone actually bothered to read the AAA study, it claims about 218 fatalities due to aggressive driving over 1990-1996. During that time about a quarter of a million people died on the road. So really more like one tenth of one percent of traffic fatalities were related to aggressive driving.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, and the aggressive driving statistics included fleeing suspects who intentionally drove into police officers or their vehicles. 48 of the 218 fatalities were police officers killed in the line of duty.
 
At least they weren't including d the Boston Marathon bombers in the total of gun violence victims, must not have been an automobile in the vicinity or they might have.
 
Its bad enough to make claims based on questionable statistics, but when the numbers THEY give don't work to match their claims, it goes from bad to simply stupid.

And, there is another side to things, one they never seem to mention, but equally valid, using any statistics provided.

I saw a headline a while back, can't recall the exact number used, 30something percent, I think.

it said that 30(something)% of traffic fatalities involved impaired drivers, I think marijuana was the drug most mentioned. Ok, fine. But that means the other 60(something) percent did NOT.

So, statistically, you are safer with the impaired driver! It's what the numbers show, after all!:rolleyes::D

If you can show me the flaw in this logic, go ahead. And then, please show the people who are writing this drivel, as well! :D
 
The NBC's Today Show and truth? Never thought I would see those words ever put in one sentence.
Let’s face it, name me one person that actually watches a show like that, which would check for facts on any report.
Go on line and see just what there headlines are at this minute.
Let me make it easy for you.
1. I earned them: sports illustrated model defends her post baby stretch marks
2. 4 things to say (and 4 things to never say) to someone who is depressed.
3. American tourist in Puerto Vallarta: “We expected the worst”
4. Shattered glass nails are “breaking” the internet: How to get the look.
5. Custom-carved pumpkin the “truly perfect” proposal for this fall-loving couple.
The sad note in this, there are a lot of people that set on their buts all day and watch this dribble and believe everything that comes out of there talking telemonitor is the truth, because they are so beautiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top