比恐怖主義更恐怖的事 Our deadliest problem? Not terrorism
If humanity wants some quick wins, a good place to start would be road accidents. Traffic killed 1.24 million people in 2010, says the World Health Organisation. That’s about double the toll of homicides and armed conflict combined. Yet we could save many of these lives quite easily. Our failure to do so is in part a simple failure of imagination.
如果人類想要快速取得一些成就，不妨從道路交通安全着手。根據世界衛生組織(WHO)的統計，2010年交通事故導致了124萬人喪生。這大概是謀殺和武裝衝突致死人數總和的兩倍。然而，我們可以相當輕易地挽救其中許多人的生命。某種程度上，我們之所以沒有這樣做，只是因爲缺乏想象力。
“Road traffic injuries have been neglected from the global health agenda... being predictable and largely preventable,” says the WHO. Car crashes aren’t considered news precisely because they are routine, remarks the Dutch writer Joris Luyendijk. He says that although road accidents are “the biggest bloodbath in the Arab world”, media instead focus on the much smaller bloodbath of terrorism.
“道路交通事故傷害一直受到全球健康議程的忽視……儘管這種傷害是可預測的，而且基本上也是可以預防的，”世衛組織表示。荷蘭作家約里斯戠因迪克(Joris Luyendijk)評論稱，之所以人們不把車禍視爲新聞，正是因爲它們太司空見慣了。他說，儘管交通事故是“阿拉伯世界最大規模的屠殺”，媒體卻關注規模小得多的恐怖主義屠殺。
Terrorists killed nearly 18,000 people worldwide in 2013, says the Institute for Economics and Peace. That’s 1.5 per cent of the number killed by traffic. Of course, terrorism might one day escalate to apocalyptic proportions, but then pundits have been predicting that since 2001. Meanwhile, with ever more cars sold, roads will soon probably kill more people than either Aids or tuberculosis.
根據經濟與和平學會(Institute for Economics and Peace)的說法，2013年恐怖分子在全球範圍內殺害了近1.8萬人。這只是交通事故死亡人數的1.5%。當然，或許有一天，恐怖主義將升級到毀天滅地的程度，可是專家們自2001年以來就一直在做着這樣的預言。另一方面，隨着更多人買車，交通事故死亡人數或許很快就會超過艾滋病(Aids)或者結核病(tuberculosis)。
Driving is too banal an activity to arouse much fear. People tend to worry more about flying, whereas the most dangerous part of a plane journey is often the drive to the airport, says Jody Sindelar, health economist at the Yale School of Public Health. Plane crashes killed 1,320 people worldwide last year, yet they dominate TV news. Karl Ove Knausgaard, the “Norwegian Proust”, explains: “A plane crash was a ritual, it happened every so often, the same chain of events, and we were never part of it ourselves. A sense of security, but also excitement and intensity, for imagine how terrible the last seconds were for the passengers...”
駕駛汽車這種行爲太過平常，以至於無法引起太多恐懼。人們似乎更擔心飛行，然而，耶魯大學(Yale University)公共衛生學院(School of Public Health)的健康經濟學家喬迪鬠德拉爾(Jody Sindelar)表示，乘飛機旅行中最危險的部分往往是開車前往機場的那一段路程。去年，飛機失事在全球範圍內共致使1320人喪生，然而這些事故充斥着電視新聞。有“挪威的普魯斯特”(Norwegian Proust)之稱的卡爾攠韋克瑙斯高(Karl Ove Knausgaard)解釋稱：“飛機失事是一場儀式，它時不時發生，同樣的事件連鎖，我們自己從來不是其中的一員。想象最後幾秒鐘對於乘客是多麼可怕，讓我們獲得了一種安全感，同時也帶來了刺激和激烈的感覺……”
By contrast, the language we use for the traffic pandemic lacks intensity. The phrase “car crash” has become slang for a social or professional mishap. The word “accident” suggests that a death was unavoidable, a matter of fate. This is wrong. Countries such as Greece and France have shown how fast deaths can be reduced when a government bothers. Sometimes the nanny state works. In 1973, 17,000 people a year died on French roads. Then leaders such as Pierre Messmer and later Jacques Chirac took action. Speed limits were imposed, seat belts made compulsory, radars installed etc. It turns out that some tragedies aren’t inevitable. A generation ago around Europe, motorcycle accidents provided a reliable supply of organ donors. That ended after helmets became compulsory.
相比之下，我們對遍地皆是的交通事故使用的語言就不那麼激烈了。“撞車”(car crash)這個詞變成了描述社會或者職業失敗的俗稱。“事故”這個詞表明死亡是不可避免的，是一種命運。這是錯誤的。希臘和法國等國家的做法已經表明，政府的介入可以在多短的時間內降低死亡人數。有時保姆國家的確能夠奏效。1973年，法國每年的交通事故死亡人數達到1.7萬人。於是皮埃爾蔠斯梅爾(Pierre Messmer)等領導人以及後來的雅克希拉剋(Jacques Chirac)採取了行動，包括實施限速規定，強制要求繫上安全帶，安裝雷達等。結果表明，一些悲劇並非不可避免。25年前的歐洲，摩托車事故是器官捐獻者的穩定來源。強制要求佩戴頭盔後，這樣的局面得以終結。
In short, we know what to do. “Globally there is nothing to invent,” says Jean Todt, the UN’s special envoy for road safety. The UN’s target of cutting road deaths to below one million by 2020 is eminently feasible. But governments have to want to reach it, even if that means irritating voters. Don’t just set speed limits; enforce them. Don’t just conduct breathalyser tests; conduct them outside nightclubs on weekend nights. And ban drivers from using phones. The colonisation of the human mind by smartphones is now killing pedestrians. Apps that inform drivers about traffic jams are particularly distracting. “Hands-free phones are not much safer than hand-held phone sets,” cautions the WHO.
簡言之，我們知道怎麼做。聯合國道路安全特使讓堠禰(Jean Todt)表示：“就全球而言，沒有什麼可發明的了。”聯合國制定了到2020年道路交通事故死亡人數降至100萬以下的目標，這完全可以實現。但各國政府必須希望實現該目標，即便這意味着激怒選民。不要只是制定限速規定，還要加以嚴格執行。不要只是進行酒精含量測試，還要在週末晚上的夜總會外面進行測試。禁止駕車者在開車時使用電話。現在人類思想受到智能手機的統治，這種行爲會危及行人。讓駕車者獲得擁堵信息的應用尤其令人分心。世衛組織警告稱：“免提電話並不比手提電話安全多少。”
One day, when driverless cars arrive, we may marvel that we ever let distracted, shortsighted and occasionally drunk humans pilot large metal projectiles. For now, perhaps the key thing to change is attitudes. Many people (especially in poor countries) get no traffic education at all. Lesson one could be that aggressive driving is not proof of masculinity. Machismo helps explain why 77 per cent of traffic fatalities worldwide (as counted by the WHO) are males.
當無人駕駛汽車來臨的那一天，我們可能會驚歎，我們曾經讓心不在焉、近視偶爾還會喝酒的人類駕駛巨大的金屬導彈。就現在而言，或許改變的關鍵在於態度。許多人（尤其是在窮國）完全沒有接受過交通方面的培訓。第一課可能是，肆無忌憚地駕駛並不能證明你有男子漢氣概。男子漢氣概有助於解釋爲何在全世界因交通事故死亡的人當中有77%是男性（根據世衛組織的估算）。
Another common attitudinal problem: in countries where cars are relatively new and therefore prestigious, drivers tend to regard themselves as kings and pedestrians as cockroaches. When I spent time in Ghana in 2000, many drivers approaching a village would honk and accelerate — even at night, when they often drove without lights. One morning I woke in a village to the sound of a woman howling. Her son had just been run over. Too many Ghanaian parents know the feeling.
另一個普遍存在的態度問題是：在一些汽車相對還不多見、從而是身份象徵的國家裏，駕車者往往將自己視爲國王，而將行人視爲蟑螂。2000年，當我在加納逗留的時候，許多駕車者在駛近村莊的時候會使勁摁喇叭和加速，即便在晚上也是如此——他們在晚上行駛時往往也不會開燈。一天早上，我在一個村莊醒來後聽到一位婦女慟哭的聲音。她的兒子剛剛被汽車輾過。太多的加納父母知道那是什麼感受。
The developing world — where over 90 per cent of road deaths happen — could make big gains fast. Todt describes a typical scenario today: an ancient vehicle, discarded from some rich country, is overloaded with people and driven by someone who bought his licence. Then, if an “accident” happens, the ambulance rarely arrives.
發展中世界（逾90%的交通死亡事故發生在發展中世界）在這方面可以很快取得進展。托特描述了當今一幅常見情景：一輛被某個富國丟棄的老舊汽車上載滿了人，而司機的駕照是買來的。然後，如果發生“事故”，很少會有救護車來。
Changing all this would cost money. But road crashes cost 1 to 3 per cent of countries’ gross national product, estimates the World Bank. For every death, several more victims survive maimed, often needing lifelong care. Meanwhile, the World Bank’s fund for road safety has an annual budget of just $3m, says Todt.
改變這一切將需要錢。但世界銀行估計，道路交通事故成本佔到各國國民總產值(GNP)的1%-3%。交通事故中每死一個人，都有其他數位受害者傷殘，這些傷殘者往往需要終生護理。與此同時，托特表示，世界銀行用於道路安全方面的資金預算每年只有300萬美元。
The world has so many problems that it’s hard to know where to start. Governments spend lots of energy trying to stop terrorism. It would probably be smarter to devote some of that effort to road safety, not just because it’s a far deadlier problem, but also because unlike with terrorism, we know what works.
全世界有太多的問題，以致於很難知道先解決哪些問題好。各國政府投入大量精力試圖打擊恐怖主義。將其中一些資源投入到道路安全方面可能是更爲明智的做法，這不僅僅是因爲這是一個致死率高得多的問題，而且還因爲，與恐怖主義不同，我們知道怎麼做有效。
