Posted on 05/25/2018 10:15:56 AM PDT by rickmichaels
It is perhaps our most astonishing social contract. Universal, essential and (mostly) binding, it depends of a certain amount of skill, (hopefully) a modicum of training and, most of all, trust.
I am talking, of course, about driving a car. And even though, in the span of just a century and a quarter, it is now just as common an everyday task as taking out the garbage or shopping for groceries, it remains an amazing — possibly the most amazing — social construct we all share.
Think about it for just a minute. Except for the time spent on divided highways, we humans strap ourselves into two-ton projectiles and drive (almost) straight at one another knowing/expecting/please-God-hoping we will pass each other, within a metre or two, going in diametrically opposing directions. We’ll do this millions of times in our lives, at closing speeds of up to 200 kilometres an hour, all the while, again, knowing/expecting/please-God-hoping the person heading directly toward you understands the concept of “you stick to your side of the road, I’ll stick to mine.” We do it without thinking. We assume — how could you drive otherwise? — that every single other participant in these close encounters of the automobile kind has bought into the same social contract. And, we do so from the tender age of 16 when, if my experience with parenting is any indication, we shouldn't even be trusted with a frying pan.
By social contract standards, it is incredibly loosely guarded: Essentially, a painted line in the middle of the road is our one safeguard against trespass. Nonetheless, it is immensely reliable. Imagine the carnage if we all had accidents at the rate we get divorced. It is also almost assuredly the most universal social contract made around the world. Left- or right-hand drive excepted, the art of driving is practiced almost identically everywhere. Compared with, again, marriage — forced nuptials, arranged brides, etc. — or dining customs — forks, chopsticks, fingers etc. — there is a resolute sameness to the basic rules of the road around the world. Drive anywhere — again, left-and right-hand drive orientation excepted — and the skills can be transposed to just about any other jurisdiction.
Oh, there are contraventions of the contract. Besides the narcissistic (texting while driving) and the criminally stupid (driving while intoxicated) there is also the flagrantly selfish — my sister, her husband and their unborn child were all killed because some asshat decided his social contract included a clause that allowed him to try to pass five cars at a stretch when he knew (later revealed in court testimony) that there was room for but four.
Indeed, even those who think nothing of breaking the legal contract of driving — i.e. driving beyond the speed limit, dangerous driving, etc. — depend on said social contract to save their bacon. For instance, the asshats — this time two-wheeled — who video themselves weaving between cars at 300 km/h aboard their Suzuki Hayabusas and Kawasaki Ninjas are relying on absolutely everybody else sticking with the very social contract they themselves are breaking. Otherwise, they’d quickly end up a bright red smear all over the highway.
Oh, adherence to the contract is imperfect; worldwide, 1.25 million humans die every year in automobile collisions. It’s a grotesque number, yes. And yet, that translates into barely one death for every hundred million miles, an incredibly low statistic considering, as I posited at the very beginning of this treatise, we’re basically driving straight at one another.
I state all these seemingly obvious truths because this social contract is coming under scrutiny as of late. At some time in the future — as soon as 15 years from now if you believe former General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz — we may all be told we’ll no longer be allowed to drive, the social contract that has governed driving for 125 years simply to dangerous to continue. Indeed, I suspect the right to drive versus our desire for safety will almost certainly become the individual-rights/public-good question of our generation.
We are already in the midst of the transition. When a company such as Volvo — it that virtually invented safety as a marketing tool — says no one will perish in one of its cars after 2020, what it is really saying is it is seeking to eliminate all risk in the task of driving. No matter how big the airbag or absorbent the crumple zone, the only way to completely eliminate deaths due to automobile collisions is to completely eliminate said collisions. And since you and I are the main reason for these accidents, well, you don’t need a road map to see where this is going.
The bigger question in all of this is whether safety has become our society’s paramount concern. Certainly for all those university students who need a “safety room” every time they are “triggered” by freedom of speech, it has. If that’s the case, then the future of personal driving has already been sealed.
If not, then the question becomes what level of risk are we willing to accept to be allowed to continue to enjoy the privilege of driving. For instance, will Toyota’s philosophy of providing universal driving “aids” on all its cars, but leaving the ultimate care and control of the automobile in the driver’s hands, be acceptable? Are the 30 to 50 per cent of lives these technologies might save — my numbers, not Toyota’s — sufficient to permit us to keep driving?
These are all questions, no matter how uncomfortable, that need to be discussed in a forthright manner in a public forum. The choice, otherwise, is to let our politicians and their safety organization mandarins dictate the decision. That’s almost never a wise choice.
This article bewails the loss of driving independence while providing a laundry list of reasons to justify ending such independence.
I’m sure self-driving vehicles being on the road will still afford some car ownership and control. Teslas are essentially self-driving already but still require a human to operate.
“1.25 million humans die every year in automobile collisions”
Obviously we need common sense vehicle control and car bans.
For the children.”
Statistically, most of those accidents happen in countries like India, where there are practically no road rules. The car companies like to lump the whole world together to get that number. There are far fewer in USA, Canada and Europe than there are in China and India.
From the article: “...the art of driving is practiced almost identically everywhere...”
Not even. I wonder if the author has even driven in other cities, let alone other countries.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-double-state-legalizes-drug/
Our State Patrol and local law enforcement have had to place a new emphasis on “impaired driving” because the problem of people driving during and after using marijuana has become so bad.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-double-state-legalizes-drug/
"The percentage of drivers [in Washington] involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014."
"One in six drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 had recently used marijuana, which is the most recent data available."
If so, they all must have switched from driving drunk - because the total number of fatal crashes did not go up.
“after legalization, 17 percent of drivers had THC in their blood. Of that 17 percent, about two-thirds also had some other drugs or alcohol in their system.” - fireman15
Ignore previous post.
“after legalization, 17 percent of drivers had THC in their blood. Of that 17 percent, about two-thirds also had some other drugs or alcohol in their system.” - https://www.livescience.com/54693-high-drivers-double-after-marijuana-legalization.html
The actual study says, “Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash were necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data available
cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study.” - https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf
I live in what I consider to be a friendly and safe area mid-way between Dallas and Fort Worth, with many freeways nearby that are heavily traveled day and night.
I’m 75 and decided years ago to avoid the freeways by driving on surface streets and fwy. access roads. Running my errands beside the fwys., I see traffic moving slower than I am doing on the one-way access roads that have traffic lights and stop signs. ....The fwys. are less crowded at night, but that’s when the idiots think it’s OK to drive 80-100 mph. I stopped driving at night several years ago because of the idiot teens, drunks and truckers.
Right you are!
When in the Navy, our home port in the Med was Naples. One night on liberty, 4 of us took a taxi there to go to another area. ......There were few defined traffic lanes and cars just went wherever they wanted. We then encountered a huge traffic circle with about 8 streets as spokes into and out of the circle. ...That was a more scary ride than any roller coaster, etc., at a State Fair!
The drivers were totally crazy, zipping in and out at high speeds. ...We sailors were mostly praying and cussing.
Just yesterday my wife and I were sitting at a stoplight and I could smell the skunk like odor of marijuana. I looked to my left and the driver of the car next to us was a young woman who was smoking marijuana. I pointed out to my wife where the smell was coming from. When the woman saw us looking at her she made an obscene gesture. Which seems to be the way that most marijuana smokers feel about anyone who questions their unhealthy behavior. Do you believe that it is safe for people to be smoking pot while they are driving?
The statistics you have provided have been contradicted by multiple other sources that I do not have time to dig up for you. Almost none of these “studies” cited by marijuana advocates have specific enough data to do anything other than provide misleading fodder for marijuana advocates. While any real world evidence and experience and common sense are completely ignored by these same advocates... And that is you to a tee, isn’t it?
I spent 25 years responding to the victims of motor vehicle accidents and a large proportion even before marijuana was legalized here were caused by people who were impaired by pot. Few of these would make it into any statistical studies because blood samples are only collected in fatal accidents and under specific circumstances... the vast, vast majority of “accidents” have no blood data collected at all by fire or police. And even among those “accidents” that do... the data from those which have no fatalities is protected by HIPPA privacy laws that severely limit the sharing of this data with ESPECIALLY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
You are operating on the wrong side of COMMON SENSE! I can make one prediction that I can guarantee is 100% accurate. You and othere like you, will continue to ignore the observations of people who have made direct observations and have a lifetime of experience or anyone else who contradicts your pot clouded belief system.
The actual study says, “Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash were necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data available cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study.” - https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PrevalenceOfMarijuanaInvolvement.pdf
Do you believe that it is safe for people to be smoking pot while they are driving?
No - nor is that the issue at hand.
Almost none of these “studies” cited by marijuana advocates have specific enough data to do anything other than provide misleading fodder for marijuana advocates.
I cited the same study YOU did (notice the "aaa" in both links?) - only you merely quoted the press release while I actually read the study.
I spent 25 years responding to the victims of motor vehicle accidents and a large proportion even before marijuana was legalized here were caused by people who were impaired by pot.
How do you know they were caused by people who were impaired by pot? And since it was happening even before marijuana was legalized, where is the evidence that legalization has increased it?
Interesting chart but it only goes to 2011. Most laws outlawing weed were removed after that.
From your posting history it is obvious that your primary reason for posting here is to advocate for marijuana usage. I have seen the many negative repercussions from marijuana usage during my decades long career. It is criminal that the media, movie industry and determined advocates such as yourself portray marijuana as a harmless substance associated only with good times and ignore the great damage that it does to both individuals and to our society.
I have seen the negative consequences first hand. Legalization is a mistake, but it is just like communism, socialism and other leftist BS... no matter how strong the evidence... no matter how much damage it does... there will always be people like you obfuscating and determined to hide the truth. Of all the substances people abuse in our society marijuana users are the ones who are almost always the most determined to never give it up.
Myself my coworkers, doctors nurses, and other in the medical profession have seen this with acquaintances, family and the public at large. Marijuana has a stronger grip on those who become dependent on it than any other substance that I am aware of. Many would rather have their right arm chopped off than give up marijuana. That is not a healthy dependency. There is a high probability that this describes your association with marijuana whether you will admit it here or even to yourself or not.
So now you've abandoned your failed claims and stooped to lying about me. Sad - but typical of Reefer Madness zealots.
I have no desire to lie about you or anyone else. That is typical of those hooked on pot. I am very sorry for you. You could not give marijuana up no matter what negative consequences it was shown to have on your physical or psychological well being. I am fairly certain that you are not capable of even admitting that marijuana has any negative affects on your or anyone else’s physical or psychological well being. I am surprised that you admit that you should not smoke pot when before or during driving.
So now you've abandoned your failed claims and stooped to lying about me. Sad - but typical of Reefer Madness zealots.
I have no desire to lie about you or anyone else.
But you have.
Me: "Many things are harmful: pot, alcohol, tobacco, triple scoop sundaes ..." - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3597432/posts?page=59#59
Me: "Stipulated that marijuana, like alcohol (cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988578), is bad for developing brains." - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3603444/posts?page=134#134
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.