How To Objectively Identify Unsafe Drivers
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
For years I have been arguing that the most objective — and perhaps, definitive — measure of a driver’s ability to drive safely is whether he or she has been involved in an at-fault accident.
Speeding tickets, for example, don’t really tell us whether a person is a safe/competent driver. They just tell us that person was caught driving faster than a number posted on a sign — which may be illegal, but by no means necessarily unsafe.
For example, it’s today perfectly legal to drive 65 or 70 mph on most highways. But during the “Drive 55″ era, such speeds were illegal. Did it suddenly become safe to drive at 65 or 70 on those same roads? Of course not. The law changed, that’s all.
Also: Skill varies. Some drivers are perfectly able to handle a car at 80 or 90 mph as well or better than some drivers can handle the same car at 60 mph. But the system considers the former as an “unsafe driver” simply by dint of his faster driving.
The point being, faster drivers aren’t necessarily unsafe drivers.
Insurance industry stats bear this out, incidentally. Faster drivers actually tend to have fewer accidents than slow-pokes. Also, while it’s true that driving faster can increase the amount of damage/severity of injury if there’s a crash, it does not follow that the risk of having a crash increases simply because “x” is traveling faster than “y.”
Unfortunately, our dumbed down speed limits force everyone to drive at the level of the least competent. We also do nothing meaningful to deal with those marginal/iffy drivers. They can have multiple at-fault accidents — and their license will be in less peril than the driver who has never had an at-fault accident but who has a couple “reckless driving” tickets — which in many states are issued as a matter of course for merely driving faster than 20 mph over the posted limit. (During the “Drive 55″ era, one could get a “reckless driving” cite for doing 76 mph on the freeway. Today the exact same speed is either legal — or a minor ticket.)
It’s nonsense.
Rather than fixate on all these “technical fouls” such as driving faster than a number posted on a sign, why not focus on those drivers who have actually given definitive proof their judgment or skill (or both) is lacking? Driving 80-something mph in a modern car on a modern Interstate highway is only “reckless” in the BS language of the insurance cartels and state/local authorities who make money on this scam.
However, if a driver blows through a red light and strikes another vehicle that had the right of way, that is incontrovertible evidence of “reckless driving.”
Yet our system focus to an overbearing extent on statutory “speeding” enforcement, with driving faster than a number on a sign the main thing the safety lobby drones on about endlessly about — and the primary offense traffic cops spend their time dealing with.
Objectively dangerous conduct behind the wheel — the driver who wanders across the double yellow while gabbling away on her cell; the guy riding inches off the bumper of the car ahead of him — is routinely ignored by traffic cops.
Until it causes an accident.
And even then, the consequences are generally less serious than they would be if the driver had been nabbed for doing 80-something — even if no metal was crunched and no one was hurt. A minor ticket might be issued as a result of one car plowing into the rear end of another that was stopped at a light. It is by no means certain. But have the misfortune to drive by a radar trap and it’s a sure bet you’ll be going home with a piece of payin’ paper in your pocket.
Are the roads any safer as a result? Or have the coffers of the state just gotten a little fatter?
The sensible alternative ought to be this:
Whenever a driver is involved in an at-fault accident, he should be issued a ticket for unsafe driving (specifics to be defined based on the particulars of each case) and required to undergo a DMV evaluation that includes a re-test of basic skills and knowledge. And that means real test — not the sad little pro forma drill they do in most states today. In other words, a test that is actually possible to fail — and which requires the person to demonstrate higher than Forrest Gumpian levels of knowledge and skill. An actual road test on actual roads should be part of the deal, too — along with a physical check-up of vision and so on.
I’m not talking race car driver skill levels — or insisting upon visual acuity good enough to make it as an airline pilot. But enough skill — and good enough vision — to be a competent driver and less of a risk to others out there, as well as oneself.
We need to weed out the barely marginal (and sub-marginal) drivers out there; often, these are people who never speed — and so fly under the radar.
Until they cause an accident, of course. At that point, red flags should be hoisted.
If a driver who has already been involved in one at-fault accident has another at-fault accident within a 5 year period, their driving privileges should be suspended until they have taken and passed (at their expense) a comprehensive driver training course that intensively focuses on basic skills/competence.
If they cannot pass, they cannot drive.
A third at fault accident in any five year period should result in permanent revocation of driving privileges for at least five years.
Some people should just take the bus.
But it’ll never happen because of the money and power derived from the current system — and because this country is afflicted with an entitlement mentality and poisoned by the notion that everyone’s “equal.”
Which of course, they’re not.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I just have a couple of comments on this flawed editorial. If the insurance companies would not have already proved that the people with the most traffic tickets are in the most accidents and most serious accidents then the insurance regulators would not allow higher insurance rates on these individuals. The fact is that although there may be a few that get tickets are safe drivers the majority of them cause a greater percentage of accidents. That is a fact and undesputable. Many of these types of reports say that slower drivers cause the most accidents. They prove that by looking at statistics that are flawed. It is true that a lot of slower cars cause accidents and that is because they are slower because they are at intersections which have more accidents or slowing to turn and they are rear ended by the guy that gets all the tickets.
Quote from the article((Whenever a driver is involved in an at-fault accident, he should be issued a ticket for unsafe driving (specifics to be defined based on the particulars of each case) and required to undergo a DMV evaluation that includes a re-test of basic skills and knowledge. And that means real test — not the sad little pro forma drill they do in most states today. In other words, a test that is actually possible to fail — and which requires the person to demonstrate higher than Forrest Gumpian levels of knowledge and skill. An actual road test on actual roads should be part of the deal, too — along with a physical check-up of vision and so on.))
Phil replies(The person who wrote this is an idiot. I find it particularlt troublesome when an organization such as the NMA feels that speeding, drunk driving and running red lights should not be enforced. Then the print an article like this one where they call for tickets for UNSAFE driving and require the ticket recipient to undergo a DMV evaluation that includes a re-test of basic skills and knowledge. Requiring this evaluation and retest based soley upon the reciept of the citation violates the driver’s right to due process(I thought the NMA fought for the rights of all north American motorists) yet in an article they published it is implied that this can be circumvented.)
Quote from article((I’m not talking race car driver skill levels — or insisting upon visual acuity good enough to make it as an airline pilot. But enough skill — and good enough vision — to be a competent driver and less of a risk to others out there, as well as oneself.
We need to weed out the barely marginal (and sub-marginal) drivers out there; often, these are people who never speed — and so fly under the radar.))
Phil replies(Apparently this person has never read any of the studies that link higher speeds with higher crash rates and/or higher risk of injury and fatality. Likely the author of this article is a road rage driver complaining about the driving of everyone around them all because traffic is heavy enough that he can’t speed all the way home.)
Quote from article((Until they cause an accident, of course. At that point, red flags should be hoisted.
If a driver who has already been involved in one at-fault accident has another at-fault accident within a 5 year period, their driving privileges should be suspended until they have taken and passed (at their expense) a comprehensive driver training course that intensively focuses on basic skills/competence. ))
Phil replies(Since the at fault drivers are more times than not the speeding drivers then we should be pre-emptive and suspend thier driving privileges after the second speeding citation and return it after they have completed a course on how to read the words “Speed Limit” and how to count high enough to know where the 65mph mark is on the speedometer(and we should make this at thier expense).
Quote from the article((If they cannot pass, they cannot drive.))
OK if the speeders can’t pass the course they don’t get thier driving privileges back.
Quote from the article((A third at fault accident in any five year period should result in permanent revocation of driving privileges for at least five years.))
Phil replies(A third speeding violation should yield the same results)
Quote from the article((Some people should just take the bus.))
Phil replies(I agree anyone who habitually breaks any traffic law should have to use the bus. This includes habitual speeders, redlight runners, stop sign runners and DUIs. Imagine we could do away with speed enforcement, redlight cameras and the use of the breathalyzer all by making these law breakers take the bus.)
Quote from the article((But it’ll never happen because of the money and power derived from the current system — and because this country is afflicted with an entitlement mentality and poisoned by the notion that everyone’s “equal.”))
Phil replies(I agree that the country is afflicted with an entitlement mentality. Just take this author for example he feels he is entitled to drive above the speed limit without suffering retribution but would impose severe retribution for other drivers who apparently annoy him. This author goes as far as to condemn the Constitution of the US and the equality of Americans under the law. What’s next buddy are we going to decide based upon skin color or religion who can use the highways and who can’t?)
FrankieJ, I agree. Though, to be clear, vehicular cycling at its foundation means that bicyclist should behave like vehicles co-using the roadway lanes. This has been proven to increase the predictability perception of bicyclists in the eyes of motorists resulting in improved safety. It also involves the bicyclists’ taking the lane. (And invokes the wrath of some motorists who dislike slower vehicles.)
One subtle thing: There are sensible improvements possible in both infrastructure and the (motor)vehicle code which both suffer from a motorists bias. Traffic rules written with virtual ignorance of the physics of bicycling. One size fits all rules equally applied to motorists and bicyclist don’t always make total sense. And, I point to Idaho Vehicle code 49-720 as wise example of good sense.
One thing I would like to see happen would be to require new driver’s ed students to take and pass a class teaching the concept of Vehicular Cycling. What would be an even better idea would be having cyclists who break the law get ticketed and have a Vehicular Cycling class as a way of having that ticket canceled.
And just in case I haven’t been clear. I argue that bicyclists should follow the law.
I also argue that the laws (and road infrastructure) should be designed from the perspective of all; pedestrians, bicyclist and motorists.
For instance, much of the grief comes from the fact that the lanes on typical roads are substandard width, not designed to accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles. Yet the bicyclists get blamed for the roads being too narrow to safely use without taking the full lane, it is the highway planners at fault.
While the law says bicyclists and motorists have equal rights, the planners favored motorists and ignored bicyclists.
A little known fact of history: The original vehicle code that started the process that grew into the state vehicle code system that makes motoring possible was “The New York Law 1887, Chapter 704: ‘An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricyles’”.
Similar for the political lobby movement that lead to the creation of the paved roads system in America, it was originally driven by the The League of American Wheelmen in the 1880′s (now called the League of American Bicyclists). The horseless carriages came a decade later and got started making use of the paved bicycle roads.
Motorists actually have bicyclists to thank for the start of their movement.
@Bruce – Agreed. Nice to see we can come to a reasonable conclusion here! First time ever for me!
I agree with any bikers that MANY drivers (I’d like to think I am not one of them) simply don’t pay enough attention, and are certainly idiots on the road. Fact is, I fear for an accident whether I’m in my car OR on my motorcycle… because most drivers really aren’t paying enough attention to DRIVING.
The problem is that it’s easier to blame the minority (bikers) than the majority who is just being ignorant. That needs to change.
I was thrilled to hear, the other day, that a person who stopped on the onramp of a highway was finally blamed for causing the accident, even though they were rear-ended. We can only hope that continued change in this more intelligent direction will continue, for everyone’s benefit. I feel that the article here is trying to imply this very line of thought, and for that I agree with what is stated in the article. There are always exceptions, and I think the biker-accident (or any death, for that matter) is one of them. But as in my rear-ended onramp-stopper example, I think the statement in the article applies 100%.
@Randy – Stop being a troll. Try understanding what is being said here on the site before blabbering on about how it’s all about breaking laws.
Hubcap Very funny. You talk about most cyclist not following the law of the roads. That is pretty much what this site is all about except for auto drivers not following the laws. Since when has this site ever been promoting following any laws? The complete oposite is what this site is all about.
@hubcap
It wasn’t just me. Several people here say they don’t feel safe bicycling on roads because the risk that motorists will kill them. Heck, you just threatened to kill my “pretentious spandex-clad ass” if I get in your way. Fact: About one bicyclist is killed by an inattentive motorist every day.
The article advocates for speeding. I mentioned that speeding makes the roads a death trap for cyclists, that is on topic.
Bruce Hallman:
Since YOU were the one who started this whole cyclists as victims thing–completely out of context–it’s pretty clear you are the one with the axe to grind.
(I just re-re-read the article and there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of anything having to do with bicycles, bicycle riders, or not driving into them.)
@hubcap
I am both a motorist and a biker. You hate me one day, and not the next. Your co-workers, neighbors, church parishioners, family members also are bicyclists at times too. How do you keep all your hate straighten out?
I really resent this whole implication that anyone in a car is just itching to pop a cyclist.
This thread typifies the attitude of riders who seem to think they have some rights to the road afforded no other.
A bike rider falls into some netherworld of part pedestrian and part vehicle which means no rules.
Cyclists ride on the sidewalk–or on the road–whichever place they feel they have more right to at any given time. They don’t stop for signals or signs and they will literally taunt drivers by deliberately impeding traffic.
In one instance, a cyclist kicked the side of my car and flipped me off while I waited at stop light that he rode right through.
Tell you what bikers, you keep your pretentious spandex-clad ass from in front of my car and I won’t drive over it. Deal?
It is agreed then, bicyclists should bicycle as fast as they reasonable can, and they should pull over when safe to let faster traffic pass.
This is not disputed by anyone I know, including the judge in Trotwood v. Selz. In that case, the bicyclist got ticketed for simply being *on* the road even while pedaling as fast as he could.
It really is an issue of civil rights. Do bicyclists have a right to use the roads shared with motorists? Far too many motorists drive inattentively, and bicyclists rightly fear for their lives. The subject of this article is why motorists should be allowed to speed, and speeding motorists intimidate bicyclists from their Constitutionally protected right to use the road.
What other Constitutionally protected rights are we willing to brush aside like this?
@Bruce
I understand the stance presented by that lawyer, and maybe that case is how they decided the situation that one time. But a single case does not constitute a blanket decision. As I mentioned, there were other cases that went the other way, too.
In the end, all I ask of ANY vehicle is to go at a reasonable rate of speed, and if you cannot do that for whatever reason, then to move aside and let faster traffic by (when it’s safe to do so). This is the generic rule of the national law, and it’s there for a reason: to promote traffic flow, as noted by my previous link from the biking site. There are cases there that support this direction, and it does make sense.
Fact is, you can regulate and nitpick on laws all day long, and still have problems enforcing them, or issues with specific situations. All I’m asking is that people respect others on the road… everyone blames speeders as the bane of the roads, but the people going slow are often equally to blame. We all share the road… so if you are the only slow vehicle on the road, then you are the one causing the problem – whether you’re on a bike or car or whatever.
Remember, slower does not necessarily mean safer.
@Todd
No doubt you want to avoid bicycling on roads shared with automobiles, considering that most motorists drive so inattentively that your life is at risk. Most people feel the same.
@Jeff & “Me”
Why mention that bicyclists that break the law need to stay off the road while not saying the same for motorists?
The truth is that speeding and inattentive motorists kill cyclists every day. That is much more harm than a bicyclist causes when they roll though a stop sign.
I have counted the speed of the cars on my local boulevard, where I bicycle. As the cars pass by the “Your speed is” radar trailer about 2/3rds of the motorists are speeding, breaking the law. And worse, selfishly and recklessly making the road unsafe for bicyclists (ask Todd who won’t even risk bicycling on roads shared with motorists).
Regarding freeways, studies have shown that most of the garages in this country have one (or more) bicycle gathering dust. In rough numbers you can say that our country has as many bicycles as automobiles. Yet we have spent trillions $ to build the freeways and 0.001% of that amount to build the bike lanes that Todd is asking for.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a motorists too. I just see the blunt truth here, which is that too many motorists neglect to realize that they risk killing bicyclists when speeding. And in the process, they intimidate and deny bicyclists their right to use the road by making roads unsafe.
Untill more bike lanes are made I am not rideing my bike on the road except for bike routes, trails, and mountaining.
P.S. Sorry for the grammer mistakes I type to fast.
In most states, bicyclists are required to obey all traffic signs such as stop signs and stop lights.
In 43-45 states in the US bicycles are NOT allowed ever on high interstate & US route freeways , high speed highways & freeways . So this discussion has nothing to do with posting high speed routes at the real limit . No bicycles are allowed on these higher speed routes so this discussion is mute . Only an idiot would even try to ride a bicycle on one of these high speed routes with traffic safely screaming by @ ~75-80 mph . Can you say knocked on your a$$ by the wind trailing behind a car as it screams . LOL
Bicycles are slow moving vehicles and need to have lanes that are set aside just for them or routes that are set for them with well marked out rules of road . Bicycles are fine for riding within cities but on rural high speed roads they need to obey the rules and stay off of them .
5-10 mph belong posted limits is fine on a bike around town . But 50-60 mph below the average speed on rural freeway , you must have a death wish and I don’t want to be the one that has your death on my conscious .
Besides 90-95 % of all US freeways , interstates & rural highways built to high speed freeway spec are marked ;
” No Bicycles Allowed ” .
@Schwinn
I recommend the book _Bicycling and the Law_ by Bob Mionske. ISBN 1-931382-99-9
In it Mionske describes the legal precedence about slow moving vehicle laws and bicyclists. The key case is Trotwood v. Selz, 746 N.E. 2nd 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000), with the essence being:
“…a bicyclist is not in violation of the (slow vehicle) ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonable can.”
You ask: Is there any other solution but for the bicyclist to get out of the way? Yes, the obvious: Wait a moment or two until it is safe to pass.
The bigger issue I think is more cultural.
The vast majority of potential bicyclists are intimidated from their Constitutionally protected right to use the public roads due to fear of being killed by impatient, inattentive and speeding motorists.
Sorry to anyone who doesn’t want to participate in the bike discussion, but I think it’s important to continue the productive discussion happening, regardless of the original topic of the message.
Still, as it pertains to this article, as Bruce pointed out, he doesn’t agree with the 3-strikes rule against the driver, if a biker is involved. I would agree, since this is a far more dangerous situation than a car-car collision. However, I believe that the law should already take this into account, as it would be considered manslaughter, wouldn’t it? In that case, maybe people who commit any form of vehicular manslaughter should immediately be subjected to proper training and checkups? I’m all for that tack on this side of the matter.
As for the continuing bike conversation: (Bruce, I am enjoying the intelligent conversation – I hope you are too.)
As noted by law, bikes are considered vehicles on the road. For this reason, they are subject to the same rules as cars. In fact, this webpage http://www.cvcbike.org/club/bikelaw.htm#_A._Roads_Without talks specifically about the law in this regard, and I would like to reference a few key items. Note that I will ignore the CA specific items, since they are state-specific (odd that CA requires left turns from the LEFT side of the road, while the UVC says it should be from the right side… but that’s a different story)
Still, getting back to your response, Bruce, I knwo that bikers are naturally slower on the roads. However, even cars are required to “get out of the way” if they are going slower. So, shouldn’t bikers have to adhere to this rule too? (I can’t find a good link to chapter 10 of the UVC, which is referenced in the bike-specific sections, but I imagine the text is in there.) Still, as in the page referenced above, we see a discussion about 11-301(b), which the page calls the “slow vehicle rule”:
“The slow vehicle rule primarily serves to facilitate traffic flow, not to promote safety. Its purpose is to require the operator of the slower vehicle to keep to the right in order to allow faster vehicles unobstructed passage.[46] It is logical to conclude that the slow bicycle rule also serves primarily to facilitate traffic flow, not safety. Although casual bicyclists greatly fear overtaking accidents, such accidents are not a major cause of bike-car collisions.”
Looking at the footnote [46] we see that this is established in case-law. Don’t get me wrong, the biker needs to be the one to yield passage (when it is safe to do so) and the faster driver cannot “take” the right of way (such is the basic foundation of our driving rules)… however, the point is that it is intent (according to the judges interpretations) is that the section’s text (from the footnote) “Its purpose is to require the operator of the more slowly moving vehicle to keep to the right in order to allow the more swiftly moving vehicle unobstructed passage.”
So, it’s not just my interpretation, but that of the judge/case/lawyer, as well as this website (which is, incidentally, a biker’s website.)
Additionally, http://bikelaws.org/ (which appears to be pro-bikers as well) has a set of “Model Laws” that they would like to see enacted. Within their PDF (http://bikelaws.org/laws/UVC-model-bike.pdf) they also suggest for an update to 11-301 to state:
“The changes suggested below enhance safety and clarity.
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or far enough to the right to allow overtaking and passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the situations listed below.
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. When the operator must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on such operator’s intended route.
The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster vehicles, and shall not require the drivers of such slowly moving vehicles to risk their own safety in order to facilitate overtaking.”
Once again, I agree with this stance.
I realize you say that the faster vehicle is legally required to yield to the slower vehicle (after all, if he didn’t he would hit the slower vehicle). However, the rules already state that the slower vehicle should not impede the flow of traffic.
You’re right, the law does not state that the slower vehicle “must get out of the way”… but it does state they simply cannot impede the flow of traffic, which implies that they must correct the infraction. To me, this means they can speed up, or get out of the way… is there any other solution? (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/ – unless TEMPORARILY unable to do so.)
In the end, it’s about NOT impeding the flow of traffic – by ANYONE, whether it’s a car, bike, pedestrian, etc. Cars and bikes must share the road… and sharing means yielding to other vehicles (cars and bikes) should the situation warrant it. In that sense, slower vehicles should always try to yield (when it’s safe, of course).
I look forward to your comments.
I agree, the topic of the article is how to determine unsafe automobile drivers. On most of the roads in the country, (with the exception of freeways and toll bridges) bicycles share the road with automobiles. The article suggests eliminating speed limits and substituting a “three accident” rule. Those three accidents could be bicyclist fatalities (bicyclists are killed daily by motorists). Motorists speeding on roads shared with bicyclists is obviously not safe driving.
POEPLE POEPLE!!! This article is about how to identify unsafe drivers not on bikes. We all got a little off the subject but really I don’t care so talk about bikes if you want people. This is just my input.
I’ve read the article three times , what do bicycles have to do with this ?? Most states don’t allow bicycles on high speed routes , freeways & and similar .
We have a national freeway systems that is built to a standard that can & does safely handle speeds in today’s cars of 70-85 mph in all 50 states with no regard to posted maximum . That is with no regard to the speed embargo’s that are in place in all 50 states well below what is the 85th percentile average freeway speed , rural or otherwise .
If posted limits in the US are ever going receive any respect this must be acknowledged . Acknowledged by posting them as such , at the real 85th percentile speeds .
I just spent a week driving aroud southern CA . I drove ~1,200 miles in the LA CA area with 65 posted on most with 70 posted on the other ones .
These under posted speed limits are 1,000,000 % ignored by all !!!!!!!!!!! cops included . Traffic flys along @ 70-80+ mph all day long without issue 95 % of the time . And this is all while there are at least 10-14 lanes on most of these high speed freeways filled with cars and trucks .
And while crossing the deserts & high mountains in the west 80-85 mph is the average flow speed . We really need limits to reflect this fact if we ever expect them to be obeyed .
In my experience driving in the western & southern US the higher speeds that are accepted and allowed lead directly to better drivers .
Drivers that can safely drive in the higher speed ranges lead to the filling these roads with much better trained drivers . Many times better drivers than from the states that treat higher speeds as a problem to be stamped out by ridiculously low under posted limits and over burdensome penalties for doing nothing unsafe .
The doing nothing unsafe is the fact that most drivers in all 50 states drive at the speed they feel comfortable at . Not 1 mph faster or slower with no regard to the posted limit .