There’s a good bit of debate on the pros (not getting lost) and
cons (being distracted) of satellite navigation units and related
in-car gadgets.
Many swear by them; some at them — accusing these devices of
making cars more dangerous by making drivers less attentive.
There’s plenty of evidence in support of both positions. For
example: A British company, Privilege Insurance, did a study that
found 19 percent of drivers who used GPS lost concentration while
driving compared to 17 percent of map readers. And here in the
U.S., Nationwide Auto Insurance ran a commercial showing a
distracted driver who ends up driving through a coffee shop window
because he relied too much on his GPS.
On the other hand, one could point to declining fatality rates
and argue that if in-car electronics were so dangerous, we should
have seen a noticeable uptick in both accident and fatality rates
over, say, the past five years — the time-frame in which these
technologies became commonplace. But we have not seen such an
increase — and much of the “evidence” is basically anecdotal. (“I
was almost creamed today by a guy who blew through a light and I
could see him talking on his cell phone,” etc.)
In the course of test driving new cars, I have found that some
GPS systems are much better designed for ease of use than others —
while some have a “Battlestar Galactica”-like array of menus,
buttons, and “mouse inputs” that can literally drive a person to
distraction.
However, the thing that may matter most is the “human
factor.”
Some drivers are simply better-skilled than others — and can
handle the multi-tasking involved with using a GPS system (or cell
phone) and still be more competent behind the wheel than a
poor/unskilled/weak-eyed driver who has both hands on the wheel and
no electronic distractions whatever.
No studies necessary; the truth of this is self-evident — and
common-sensical.
The difficulty is setting regulations based on the “typical”
driver and his ability (or lack thereof) to deal safely with things
like cell phones and in-car GPS units. Now you’re treading on the
sacrosanct “right to drive” (irrespective of how poor a “driver”
the person in question might be) that is as untouchable,
politically, as Social Security reform or the idea of tossing the
IRS into the dustbin of history. Any suggestion that driving is in
fact a privilege to be earned rather than a right
to be conferred is met with violent opposition — from teens to
AARPers to everyone in between.
The rest of us are caught in the middle.
If only the bar could be set just a little bit higher in terms
of driver training/licensing requirements, the whole GPS/cell
phone/distracted driver issue would probably become a non-issue.
Because the problem we have is not a distracted driver problem —
it’s a bad driver problem.
Driver training is neither mandatory nor remotely comprehensive.
We give virtually anyone who can make his way up to the DMV window
and get through a Forrest Gumpian “skills” test a license — and
then scratch our heads in bewilderment at the ongoing and
increasingly pervasive spectacle of drivers who can’t stay in their
lane, don’t know how to merge safely with traffic or who “didn’t
see” that stop signs, red light, or the soon-to-be roadkill
motorcyclist in their blind spot — because they were too focused
on punching in a new destination or gabbling on their cell
phones.
Or just picking their noses.
These “drivers” are already dangerous — adding GPS, cell phones
and the like just makes them even more so. Regulating the use of
these gadgets, therefore, is about as effective a policy as
insisting that hard-core drunks only have two or three for the road
— instead of five or six. In both cases, getting the
inept/dangerous driver off the road (or back to school for some
remedial training) is the proper solution.
Don’t worry about the digital readouts, flat screens and
buttons. They’ll take cars of themselves. If we take care about who
we allow to get behind the wheel.
