**Author’s Note:
I fully intended to publish a non-fiction book entitled SPEED WAS A
FACTOR as the complete argument for what occurs below. My foreseeable future, however, does not
include enough calendar vacancy to allow it.
“The Idea” should be circulated, however, not hoarded; it is simply too
important. At least, I think so.
Death as a
Bottom Line
You may have noticed my vitriolic tendencies towards
the media’s misplaced sensationalisms regarding death and injury
statistics. To paraphrase a Star Trek
adage, the death of a few outweighs the deaths of the many. Not that one person’s death is any less
important than another’s, no matter how it happened. Death and injury (we’re talking minor scrapes
to quadriplegia here) are bottom lines, and, what matters to most of us, I
would prefer to hope, is if they were preventable.
Take for instance yearly averages for U.S. deaths,
2000-2010:
- Firearm Homicides: 11,828 (source: cdc.gov)
- Airplane Crashes: 614 (source: ntsb.gov *excludes 9/11)
- Motor Vehicle Wrecks: 36,488 (source: nhtsa.gov)
- Cancer: 560,453 (source: cdc.gov)
- Medical Malpractice: 139,000 (sources: iom.edu & oig.hhs.gov)
Firearm Homicides, there’s a good one. The convenience store clerk, metro cabbie, or
humdrum domestic violence cases barely gain mentions as bylines in the Local section
of your town’s newspaper. Kill a cop, a
fireman, a politician, a soldier, or worse (and yes, I have to mention it), a
classroom full of Jedi younglings, and the news media whips The Machine into
action. Endless on-site reports,
badgering for a new legislative agenda, politicians scrambling for do-gooder
face-time on camera, and social networks abuzz with endless text-to-graphic
opinions, usually sarcastic. All of this
typically bemoaning a singular act that was largely unpredictable and
unpreventable. The only things these
acts are, because they occur with less frequency, are shocking.
Remember, I’m depicting death as a bottom
line. After you’re gone, the cause of
death doesn’t matter; people will be angry, people will mourn and suffer,
people with eventually take a retrospective and decide whether to forget the
why or how, moving on with their lives. If
a percentage of these people actually remain engaged, they might possibly be
interested in prevention, and this is currently where my heart resides. Why?
Honestly, if I had answers to all the world’s ills you’d regularly see
my mug on television. I haven’t the
slightest clue to cure malignant neoplasms, or correct the behavior of every
errant medical professional, let alone possessing the power to deactivate the
world’s triggers (secretly working on this in my lair beneath the Vatican…shhh!). I do, however, believe that air safety is the
beacon example-setter, and that there are advantages to be gained in Cargaea.
Speed Was a Factor
Speaking of sarcasm, I intended to use my book
title as a cheeky past-tense insinuation.
Some of my preliminary diligence on the subject of vehicle related
deaths revealed that speed was typically not the underlying cause for crashes. Most emanated from some form of distraction
combined with lack of experience and education in defensive maneuvers. More controversially, one may argue that a
speeder is actually paying more
attention to their driving environs than: A) Out-of-town businessmen with their
GPS-locked eyes, B) Moms with football (or fútbol) matches ongoing in the backs
of their minivans, C) Every kid on the planet with a smartphone. Yes, I totally stereotyped the demographics. If I wrote anything close to "MapQuested vixens...", they'd have my rocks in a sling! Hopefully, you get my point. Speed contributes to the severity of damage,
not so much the cause. And please, for God’s
sake, do not twist the above statement as some maligned endorsement for
speeding! There is this little matter
called THE LAW, and that’s what I’m on about.
Has anyone besides me taken a forensic look at
their entire driving life and decided that, with the exception of a few token
advances in technology and safety, we—the general public, that is—haven’t
really advanced much? As far as I can
tell, we aren’t getting anywhere faster, and we really aren’t getting there
much safer either. Okay, some in the
media have been touting less death and injury lately, but correlate that with general
economic conditions combined with the price of gasoline, and you’ll quickly
determine that less driving equals less death.
Duh! Sorry, that was a teenager moment. Here’s a real-world solution:
Battle
Lines
My research also determined four main fronts to
enhance driving as we currently know it.
Vehicle Technology, Roadway Engineering, Driver Training, and Laws. Let’s take a quick look at each:
Vehicle design has indeed improved dramatically
over the years. Comforts and control
have received marked improvements.
Airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, navigation, crumple
zones…there are so many. If we are so
concerned with our own safety, however, why not follow the ultimate in
safety-conscious—race cars! Fire suits,
helmets, roll cages. Ah, too cumbersome
to be sure, and unsightly. I wouldn’t be
caught dead in a fire suit. Especially
one with manufacturer’s endorsements.
How about you? The same goes for
helmets. You can complain about your
hair if you wish; I’m bald and it leaves lines.
Roll cages? Someone explain this
to me: Our cars use purposely-collapsible bodies to cushion impacts, whereas
NASCAR utilizes fully rigid cages to prevent just that—collapses. Don’t lecture me about entering your car
through its window, damn it; tell me about your safety! Cars, on the whole, are manufactured
according to consumer needs. It’s a
gargantuan business for a profit, adjusting to only what’s needed at the
moment. Don’t expect a Chris Christie
news conference any time soon complaining about Republican funding for vehicle
design. Cars didn’t kill anyone on the
Jersey shore.
What about our roads? Well, I’ve noticed them getting wider over the years to accommodate more
traffic. More use of asphalt instead of concrete
too. I don’t believe they’ve become any
more efficient at getting us from Point A to Point B, however. Okay, one exception: roundabouts. Thank you, Europe. We’ll trade you a right on red…or left if
you’re nationally-inclined. I think the
only real contribution anyone could make with regard to roadway engineering is
solving that nasty little problem called “stopping”. How much energy and time is lost on the brake
pedal? Again, don’t expect a national
outcry. President Eisenhower’s
interstate project was the U.S.’s last great endeavor. Transportation infrastructure will
undoubtedly become a forefront issue once passenger technology demands an
upgrade.
Driver Training and Laws. Now here are two codependent areas where the
possibility for wholesale changes exist.
To become a licensed driver in the USA, citizens typically begin
training at the age of 15. Once
citizenship is established, to begin this process, all that’s required is
passing a laughable physical examination and an arguably skeletal
multiple-choice exam. The “physical” is
a cursory glance by the government clerk, and a simple vision test to make sure
you’re not completely blind. In many
instances, stating medical requirements for corrective lenses is optional so
long as you pass an easy eye exam. 20/40
with a 100-degree field of vision are commonly acceptable parameters. Interestingly, 20/70 vision is allowable to
drive during the day in many states.
There are no tests that I’ve seen to measure one’s abilities with regard
to reaction times and physical strength for emergency handling. Multiple-choice tests, by their very nature,
allow those with cloudy memories, or worse, the completely uneducated, a shot
at correct answers. It’s fair to say a
percentage of drivers exist on today’s roads out of sheer luck. To me, that’s plainly unacceptable no matter
how small the percentage. Yet, to be in
control of a deadly vehicle on our highways, one only has to be physically
“able” kid with a modicum of fortuity and access to one brave, licensed adult to
supervise you. One year later, you don’t
even need the adult. We’ve been doing it
this way for around 100 years, and going by crash statistics, we haven’t gotten
much better at it. This, my friends, is
the area that we have the power to change—easily, painlessly, and with far-reaching
benefits. I’ll get to The Idea in a
moment, but one thing bears a mention first.
Google
Thinks We’re Too Stupid
No, I don’t think that’s Google’s premise for
their quest in driverless
cars, but it’s a macrothought with troublesome consequences. Let’s leave aside the obvious growing pains
that will undoubtedly associate the new technology. There will be may wrecks, surely. It’s the deemphasizing of highly-trained
drivers that I find disquieting. I mentioned
aviation earlier. What have they been up
to?
It may send your spine tingling to know that most
of the actual piloting in today’s aircraft has been computer-automated for many
years. I don’t mean the age-old autopilot
for altitude and level flight; I mean automated take-offs and landings. The amount of physical pilot interaction has
decreased as the years march. If Google
or other companies succeed in selling its automated systems, so too shall our
own driving interaction. The difference
being, there are currently no initiatives for increased driver training. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), on
the other hand, maintains vigilance in pilot training and techniques. By the FAA’s apparent accountability
standards, all air disasters are unacceptable.
Why not then are car wrecks equally unacceptable by the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration? I
want to believe they feel that the National Daily Highway Travesty is just as
unacceptable as any jet crash, and that they are simply overwhelmed with an
impossible task. Only, I don’t feel the
situation’s impossible.
The Idea
Cut to the chase…
What would it take for car insurance companies to cut their premiums in
half? Along with marked improvements in driver
safety and a new industry’s creation, those are my goals—the triple win. In essence, here is what I propose:
An all-new license class: The Super License
Benefits:
- Increased safety: Less death and injury
- Reduced medical needs and costs as result
- Increased privileges: Some reasonable increases in available speeds on certain designated roadways
- Vastly reduced insurance costs to offset upfront cost of training and licensure
- Tax breaks and other incentives for school startups and participating insurance carriers
- Graduated Age/License Structure:
o
17-20: Super Training (one examination for
period)
o
21-25: Super Young Adult (one examination for
period)
o
25-45: Super Adult (exam every 5 years)
o
45-60: Super Mature Adult (exam every 3
years)
o
60+: Super Senior (exam every 2 years)
- 40-hour Academic program: Classroom and Range
- Each bracket has distinct physical and academic test requirements to maintain status:
o
Physical:
§
Vision
§
Hearing
§
Tactile
§
Strength
§
Reaction Time
o
Academic:
§
Comprehensive written and oral exams including:
·
Multiple choice, fill in the blank, and stated.
§
Demonstrative physical driving test with rigid
field examiner:
·
Advanced course maneuvering skills in a variety
of conditions: dry, wet, ice/snow.
·
Obedience of traffic marking, conditions and signage
in real world (15 minute drive with examiner on streets and highway)
- Costs in school tuition and licensing not to exceed half (50%) of typical yearly insurance premium for each individual.
The
Argument
First and foremost, keep in mind that absolutely nothing changes for those happy in their current license and insurance programs. The Idea creates an entirely new class.
While I envision a wealth of political correctness
in The Idea, all benefits included, undoubtedly there are the dark, real-world
barriers trolling underneath. Reality
says insurance company executives will automatically raise shields to any
utterance of less cash flowing into their coffers. My angle to them would be: That’s true, but how much less would be going
out?
And, how are you going to handle damage control once the public latches
on to this concept? Buckle up, Mr.
Gekko; I’m offering this idea to increase your bottom line and your public image.
Insurers are the gatekeepers to any policy change. Without the expense benefit, there is no real
public incentive.
Speaking of the public, would they actually go for
it? I fully believe they would. Perhaps no stampede at first, but once
savings appear annually to the tune of several hundred dollars, combined with
the likely inferiority-motivation psychology, I think most people will
eventually see the light. We can’t
solely rely on our good consciouses else The Idea would have hatched long
ago. Sadly, we’ve already experienced
school buses full of those little younglings slaughtered on our roads. It happens with such regular occurrence,
we’ve become numb to it.
What Now?
Any budding legislators with no cause to champion? I’ve outlined the characters and the
plot. Give me an ending! The story won’t be over without one, and I’ve
got another to write.
More Soon...
~T
No comments:
Post a Comment