-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Sail Fawns and “One for the Road”
Why not ban bad drivers instead?
The National Safety Council (one of those private but sounds-like-it’s-the government “interest groups”) wants to see cell-phone use in cars banned.
I hate sail fawns, too — they’re overused by self-important busybodies who seem to believe their constant in-public yawping makes them look like Important People On the Way Up. But banning their use in vehicles is the automotive equivalent of gun control: It blames a tool, an inanimate device, for the idiocy of those (always a minority) who cannot handle that tool responsibly.
The real problem isn’t cell phones. It’s the degraded quality of the American driver; the might-as-well-be-nonexistent training — and testing — that we require before we let people get behind the wheel.
The Safety Council says that flapping your gums on a cell while driving is akin to drunk driving; specifically, that it works out to a degree of impairment comparable to having a BAC level of .04 to .06 — which is close to the legal minimum necessary in most states to be convicted of DUI.
But here’s the thing: The DUI/DWI standard has been dumbed-down, too. It used to be (about 20 years ago) .10 or .12 BAC — a standard that was arrived at not by pulling a number out of a hat but by examining accident stats. It was determined that actual accidents — real ones, not theoretical “might have happeneds” — correlated with BAC levels of .10 or higher.
So — reasonably — the law reflected this.
Then came Mothers Against Drunk Driving. (You know that anything with “Mothers” in its title is not going to be reasonable — right?)
No surprise, a campaign of emotive browbeating and termagant pressure tactics caused state DUI/DWI standards to be revised downward to the point where “background” BAC levels of .08 or less that used to be legal — because there was no evidence of a real-world correlation with actual accidents — became evidence of “drunk driving.”
The ironic fact that most of the drivers so ensnared had given no evidence of “drunk” driving — other than blowing into a Breathalzyer — never bothered MADD. These drivers just got caught up in sobriety checkpoint dragnets; otherwise they would have gone unnoticed — and made it home without incident. The actual facts about BAC levels and accidents (again, real ones) supports this irrefutably.
But the organization fixated on theoretical risk — ever diminishing, of course, and always based on the least common denominator. The least able, the most marginally skilled driver.
And so it is today with sail fawns.
Take one borderline inadequate driver. Add a cell — or a frozen margarita over dinner — and, hey! presto! You have an accident waiting to happen. But take away the cell (and the margarita) and you still have a marginal driver. Who is still an accident waiting to happen.
Just slightly less so.
Conversely, take a high-skilled driver. Add one margarita over dinner — or cell phone chat — and you’ve still got a driver with a higher skill level than the didn’t-have-a-drink, not gabbling on his sail fawn marginally skilled driver n the example above.
Which of the two is the more likely to run a light and t-bone your car?
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/14/sail-fawns-and-one-for-the-roa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Craig| 1.14.09 @ 6:36AM
Sorry, but I have to disagree. As the owner of a high performance car, I consider myself a "skilled driver" and I refuse to use my cell phone while I am driving. The driver needs to focus 100 percent on driving...especially to stay away from the people that are talking on their cell phones! Without fail, if I see someone who looks like he does not have a clue what is going on in his vehicle up ahead or behind me, he/she is on a cell.
I say ban 'em......pull over if you need to talk on the phone.
Jason | 1.14.09 @ 6:47AM
Welcome to the soft paternalism of the Obama Era. http://www.rightklik.net/
Rocco| 1.14.09 @ 7:16AM
Despite my conservative beliefs (nod to Jason), I have to agree with Craig. I refuse to answer my cell phone while driving, and the mess that is northern VA traffic, I stay 1,000% focused on traffic conditions and clueless drivers, of which there are very many. In fact, there are too damned many idiots on the road who have NO business driving (judged by their conduct - run stop signs, make left turns from the far right lanes on six-lane roads and vice versa, etc.), and coupled with cell phone usage, they are downright dangerous. On average, I suffer 3 near-misses per week, and when I get around the idiot, he/she is without fail on a cell phone and totally oblivious. As a motorcycle rider, I find the danger much more acute. Ban them on the road, like most intelligent, developed countries (and developing countries) do. Freedom does NOT equal unbridled license.
saleboter| 1.14.09 @ 8:01AM
Yes and also ban other driving distractions including tuning the radio, cd changing, adjusting the heating, GPSs, etc.
I'ved seen people driving with TVs sitting on their dashboard!
Ryan| 1.14.09 @ 8:34AM
I don't care, I just want the slowpokes out of the left lane.
Donn| 1.14.09 @ 8:44AM
Craig and Rocco:
You show your true colors. Of course you two are fabulous drivers who concentrate 1000% (which is mathematically impossible) and everyone else must do exactly as you do and say. As Rocco points out, there are too damned many idiots on the road who have NO business driving. They will still be on the road with or without cell phones; that is Eric's point.
So in your highly trained, delivered from-on-high opinion, EVERYONE must be banned from driving with cell phones. What about the millions of drivers that don't drive in N. VA? What about the thousands of drivers that do drive in N. VA with cell phones and NEVER have a problem (BTW Rocco, you have 3 near misses a week and don't think that maybe you are the problem?).
I say ban both of you from ever holding a place of authority over the rest of us minions.
Craig| 1.14.09 @ 8:53AM
Good grief, excuse the heck out of me for living. I'm surprised that I can even think...my mouth is so full of all the words you just put in it. I gave my opinion, I don't think people should drive and talk on the phone. Driving is serious and should be treated as such, with as few distractions as possible.
Geez, grow up and get a life.
jerryofva| 1.14.09 @ 9:01AM
I am skeptical about studies showing no difference between hands free devices and holding the cellphone. NASCAR drivers and combat aviators are communicating all the time in far more demanding environments then normal driving. I probably qualify as a highly skilled driver but I think even the average driver can talk safely in a hands free enviroment.
Ken| 1.14.09 @ 9:01AM
We are presented with a false dichotomy. An alert and skilled driver will not yack on a cell phone while driving.
A former police officer and defensive driving instructor, I have had occasional near collisions with people engrossed in cell phone conversations. That they can be characterized as near rather than actual is attributed by my alertness. In rush hour traffic it is impossible for a motrist to envelop himself in enough space not to be vulnerable to the lurches of inattentive drivers.
Donn, the thousand of drivers in N. VA with cell phones NEVER KNOW they have a problem. They are oblivious to the fuming drivers stuck behind them or the alert drivers taking evasive action when they drift into their lanes.
It is no more offensive to liberty to ban cell phone use by drivers than it is to ban blindfolds.
Donn| 1.14.09 @ 9:03AM
Craig:
Your words.."I say ban 'em..". That is vastly different than "I don't think people should drive and talk on the phone".
I am grown up, so I can make my own choices as to when I will use my cell phone. I have a life that I live my way, not your way.
Donn| 1.14.09 @ 9:12AM
Ken:
With all due respect, you make it sound as though EVERY driver that uses the cell phone is causing a problem. I think that is an over statement, just like equating a blindfold while driving to talking while driving. Life is full of distractions, especially while driving. Kids can be fighting, music is playing, talk radio, the scenery, the weather, the traffic. I agree that people need to be discerning in their use of cell phones (how is it different, besides dialing, than talking to someone in the car?), but I agree with Eric. I am sick and tired of everyone wanting to stick their nose into other people's lives. The BAC level is a perfect example.
Craig| 1.14.09 @ 9:12AM
As the esteemed Mr. Reagan once said, "there you go again"....the article was about banning the phone, so I said ban 'em. A compromise was not discussed in Mr. Peters' article.
"You just keep on thinkning there Butch..er Donn..that's what you're good at..."
Donn| 1.14.09 @ 9:15AM
There is not compromise to "ban". Something either is banned or it isn't. When you ban something, you restrict freedom.
Yes, I will keep on thinking. You should try it.
Donn| 1.14.09 @ 9:17AM
Craig:
My last line was way to sarcastic. Apologies. I just disagree with you on this issue.
Craig| 1.14.09 @ 9:19AM
You missed the point again...but that's ok Donn. We all know who and what you are.
Adios
Craig| 1.14.09 @ 9:22AM
Apology accepted...and please accept mine for my last sarcastic remark.
Ned| 1.14.09 @ 10:10AM
Hearing all this nonsense the last few days about cell phone use while driving to be akin to drunk driving, has made me realize that drunk driving must not be the threat we once thought it was. Hell, if it is, we have a huge number of drunks (cell phone users) on the road and we are not suffering from a increase in carnage. Seems to me we can let more drunks hit the road, so long as they don't slur into their cell phones.
Richmond| 1.14.09 @ 10:18AM
Re: "... I just want the slowpokes out of the left lane."
Preach on, Brother Ryan!
MattE| 1.14.09 @ 11:39AM
Nice post. I agree with you, of course, since you only want to outlaw outrageous and actually deleterious behavior. Most of the others in the comment chain would be happy to outlaw inconvenient (dare I say personally offensive) behavior. I, too, know the aggravation of being behind or beside an inattentive driver, but their conduct is not criminal, it is simply impolite. That instinct, wanting to outlaw anything that is offensive, even under the guise of the liberal mantra "It's a safety issue" underlies most of our nation's willingness to ever multiply, and ever accede to, punitive legal restrictions. In this particular case, our nation's highways are not intended to host stock car races; we simply need to understand that poor drivers, bored drivers, and distracted drivers have a right to be there too. Let us think for a moment about all the good that comes from the increased productivity of being able to navigate via cell phone with a loved one needing a ride, connecting to emergencies at work while wasting time in horribly congested roads, or simply getting in a little more personal time with children who would otherwise be alone. Finally, I personally know the cost of overzealous prosecution of a young man who, though he drank one evening, was not drunk or over the limit when he drove off the road. He was prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter and is in prison right now when the mistake cost him teh life of his best friend. What a waste. The criminalization of error should be the first definition of a fascist police state i.e. zero tolerance for human fallibility.
Dustoff| 1.14.09 @ 11:53AM
Well, as a fire/medic. I drive a big rig at a high rate of speed. Talking to my crew and dispatch and yes even on a cell phone.
I can understand the 100% part. But folks, there is a bunch of very bad drivers out there.
God knows I see them all the time.
Just like the fools who mow the grass wearing sandals or just bare feet.
Scot| 1.14.09 @ 12:12PM
People should be discussing what the difference between hands free and Not is. If you ban all cell phone conversations even hands free then you will have to explain how hands free cell phone use is worse then normal conversation with passengers. I know for a fact that most people when talking in person have to turn their head to see them while in the car. THis seems worse than hands free phone conversations. So Craig and others should clarify to us if they think in person conversations should be banned as well, and if so how will you enforce this ban on in person conversation. To take this one small step further, most people listen to radio and some to talk radio. I personally talk back to the radio. Should people like me be banned from that as well? Is it any different? Another little step would be GPS. GPS talks to you as well, If your like me you glance at the GPS for clarification. THis too will have to be addressed. I could go on but hopefully your folly has been displayed.
Scot| 1.14.09 @ 12:16PM
Another point is that the articles main point is to spend more time training capable drivers and removing the bad ones. That way you wouldnt have to go to these great lengths in legislation. One good point made earlier is that Nascar drivers have head sets and converse with the pit crew continually while drive 200 plus miles an hour. Why are they capable of doing this? Because they are highly trained drivers!!!!
dgdc| 1.14.09 @ 12:27PM
The differences between hands free cell phone and passenger conversation have been studied, and hands free cell phone is definitely more distracting. The main distinction is that the passenger will modulate the conversation in response to road condictions reducing the conversation distraction when conditions are busy. The cell phone coverser does not have the visual cues that conditions are busy and will therefore not modulate conversation in order to be less distracting when necessary.
Dustoff| 1.14.09 @ 12:45PM
dgdc.
What we don't know. How was the study done?
I remember years ago when a "study" said (lime green fire trucks) were safer. So everyone one switched and guess. ZERO improvement.
So without seeing some hard numbers and how the test was run. It means zip!
By the way, did they test drivers who smoke, eat food, or do the make up thing?
C. S. P. Schofield| 1.14.09 @ 12:55PM
Who needs a ban? Pass laws such that in the event of an accident any driver who was on his cell at the time is presumed to have been at fault, unless he can PROVE otherwise. Then allow insurance companies to duck paying for accidents caused by clients who were working their jabber-jaws instead of paying attention.
It won't be PERFECT, but I bet the cell-jabberers go away.
Gary| 1.14.09 @ 1:51PM
I minimize the use of my cell when driving & others who seem to live on cell phones while driving really aggravate me, but I don't favor a ban. The increasing regulation of our behavior by government is out of hand & the nanny state is coming. It has already arrived in the UK. Smoking bans, fat bans, lowering DUI definitions, where will it end? Shall we all become the "bubble boy" of Sienfeld fame?
Brian| 1.14.09 @ 2:14PM
How about Public Service Announcements to teach people HOW TO DRIVE, since the states aren't interested in requiring it to get a license.
Think about it. Show some idiot driving the speed limit in the left lane and how dangerous that is. I can go on and on.
And put them on the WB Network, Oprah and any other crappy show that stupid people usually watch.
Sure makes a lot more sense than the millionth PSA lecturing us on how we should stop smoking.
Speedbump| 1.14.09 @ 3:18PM
I'm a certified high performance driving instructor for Porsche Club of America, BMW CCA, and the National Auto Sport Association...what I've found is that if you haven't been to a number of our schools, you have developed a skill set that matches the average speed that you drive over the course of your driving experience...the average speed you drive in a year is around 40 mph...that means your skills are developed for 40 mph and at any speed over that you are over your head...driving on an interstate is driving in a straight line; there are no 'curves' on an interstate highway that require any skill whatsoever to negotiate...which is why our interstates are as safe as they are; my grandmother can drive in a straight line and she's dead...if you haven't had high performance driving training , then you have the skills of the average novice driver in one of our schools (yes you do), then you don't know how to properly accelerate, decelerate, read the road surface, enter a corner, apex, exit a corner, balance the car with the throttle, or threshold brake...you don't even know how to properly sit behind the steering wheel...you just think you do...
Yes, over 99% of American drivers do not know what they are doing...in our schools we take that skill set you've developed by merely surviving as long as you have and we raise it...in every area, and yes, concentration is one of the areas we develop...not looking far enough down the road is the biggest fault we find...
Cell Phones don't kill...speed doesn't kill...inattention, over-confidence, and lack of experience kill...
Rich| 1.14.09 @ 4:09PM
At least one public health study of cell phone use by drivers gives the lie to the "hands free" argument. Published a few years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study showed that using a cell phone while driving increased the chances of being involved in an accident- but NOT while actually using the phone. Seems like drivers that use cell phones are more likely to be inattentive. Banning cell phone use while driving might not make these drivers concentrate more. Maybe they would be even more distracted. Making laws with good intentions and dubious results is, I'm afraid, here to stay if the results of the last two elections ars any indication.
Dustoff| 1.14.09 @ 4:18PM
Speedbump.
You ever tried to throw a 25000 pound fire truck in a tight corner or weave thru traffic at 50+.
What a thrill. (-:
Thomas| 1.14.09 @ 4:31PM
Ok, let's think this through for a moment. We have self described highly proficient drivers that NEVER use their cell phone while driving. I suspect that neither do they eat, consult a dah mounted GPS or change the station on the radio. That is fine and is well within their self evaluation of the limits of their driving ability. Now, there are those that not only feel themselves adequate to the task of driving the vehicle, talking on the cell phone, eating breakfast, reading contracts and performing personal hygiene rituals such as applying make-up, shaving, flossing and even painting their nails. Now I know that I would rather share the roadway with the former rather than the latter. But, who am I to say that someone is incapable of multi-tasking sufficiently to carry on a short telephone conversation and responsibly operate a motor vehicle? And who are any of you to tell me that I am incapable of it?
The bottom line is no one is going to obey the law if they do not want to. Most people routinely drive in excess of the posted speed limit, simply because they want to. So you think outlawing cell phone use is going to make a difference? Get real.
David| 1.14.09 @ 4:35PM
Mr. Peters, you can't compare drunk driving with cell phone use in the car. The fact is, in 2009, the MAJORITY of drivers on the road at any given time are either talking on the phone or texting someone. For the last several years, whenever I am frustrated by another driver, I almost always see that his/her inattention was caused by talking on the phone. Yes, ban them except in medical emergency situations. If I call someone's cell phone, I ask if they are driving. If so, I tell them to call me when they get where they are going and I hang-up.
macdaddy| 1.14.09 @ 5:33PM
How is a ban going to work, especially for hands free calls? It would be pretty easy to let the phone drop when you see a cop. Plus, hearing your cell phone ring and not answering it is pretty distracting, so do you have to turn it off when you start the car? Trying to pull over to make a call, especially on a busy freeway is idiotic. Are you advocating the cops pull someone over just because they think the person might be talking on the phone rather than singing along to the radio? Maybe they could subpoena the cell phone records to prove they were on the phone at the time they were pulled over. Since cell phones are apparently in the cross-hairs of our nation's busybodies, we'll overlook the civil rights issues inherent in that. Fighting terrorism? POLICE STATE! Fighting cell phone use? That's just the price we have to pay to be good citizens.
I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Peters. He could have also made the point that just about every other improvement to make cars more pleasurable, like the radio, were also deemed safety hazards when they first came out.
Oh, and Speedbump, that was an absolutely hilarious post. Had me rolling on the floor.
Thom| 1.14.09 @ 7:46PM
I’m all for banning them as long as you ban the other 94% of driver behaviors that cause accidents. There are about 20 named causes of accidents of which cell phone use is but 6%. Everyone sees someone on a cell phone several times a day but most never actually see a wreck caused by one. As a licensed radio operator I have a legal right to communicate with that equipment in my vehicle just as Public Service people do every day. Same distraction, just less of it per person on average. Some of you might want to be real careful what you wish for because some of you are certainly guilty of the two biggest causes, speeding and following too close. It will far easier to simply ban cars if you buy into this emotional argument.
j| 1.15.09 @ 9:42PM
Too little is said about the danger/nuisance of loud stereos in cars. When people drive and blast their stereos (the boom car phenomenon), they are not only distracting themselves and others, they are also causing pain to those forced to hear the pounding idiocy they play. I think banning loud stereos in cars (at least for town and city driving) might make more sense than banning cell phone use, though I can appreciate the arguments in favor of the latter as well Maybe those who like pounding music at high volume should listen to it on headphones and spare the rest of us.
Daffy Duck| 5.9.09 @ 11:01PM
I don't completely understand... people have always talked to passengers in the seat next to them... what's the difference?
Daffy Duck| 5.9.09 @ 11:03PM
I don't completely understand... people have always talked to passengers in the seat next to them... what's the difference?
glades| 6.14.09 @ 3:54AM
Mention has been made here of "NASCAR drivers and combat pilots" and their ability to "communicate". It should be pointed out that their verbal exchanges are not what could be characterized as 'chatting'.
The most unacceptable drivers are the ones who believe that behaving as if they are in a NASCAR event shows that they are competent. There are plenty of people who should be required to take public transportation permanently, but these should be first. It would take a majority of the misery and hazard of road travel out of the equation.
I don't have much confidence that's going to happen soon though; that's why I got my pilot's license and bought an amphibious airplane.
hgjghj| 11.18.09 @ 12:16AM
iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac
tytrtr| 1.11.10 @ 2:00AM
FLV to WMV Converter,
Free FLV to WMV converter
shanghai body massage | 2.3.10 @ 5:03AM
Nice post. I agree with you, of course, since you only want to outlaw outrageous and actually deleterious behavior. Most of the others in the comment chain would be happy to outlaw inconvenient (dare I say personally offensive) behavior. I, too, know the aggravation of being behind or beside an inattentive driver, but their conduct
nbvcn| 2.21.10 @ 9:28PM
Tod Converter
trer| 2.25.10 @ 3:30AM
DVD PAL to NTSC,
PAL DVD to NTSC
gfdgd| 3.1.10 @ 2:16AM
DVD to iTouch Converter Mac,
Convert DVD to iPod Touch