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.)
@Schwinn,
While I can appreciate your desire about minimum speed, I ask you to check the law about what you describe as “in the way of (legally) faster traffic.”
Considering that bicyclists are “traffic” and the U.V.C. Article 8 Section 11-801 states: “No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable…safe and appropriate.”
I could go into the court cases, such as People v. Banat 100P. 2d 374 (Cal. Super. 1940) which held that: “reasonable” refers “to the speed that a vehicle is driven”. Clearly, a bicycle cannot reasonable be expected to be driven faster than a bicycle can physically be pedaled.
In short, the faster vehicle is legally required to yield to the slower vehicle, not the other way around.
Of course, the slower vehicle must comply with the slow vehicle laws of the state, in California it is CVC 21654 which only says you must stay in the right hand lane. And that when the bicyclist impedes “five or more vehicles… (the slow vehicle) shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway”.
The law doesn’t say that the bicyclist must “get out of the way” of faster traffic as you seem to hope. That said, most cyclists including myself pull out and let faster vehicles pass when it is safe.
Though also, I have learned through hard personal experience that it is vastly safer to bicycle taking a full lane when the lane is of substandard width. Otherwise, too many motorists attempt squeeze by, putting my life at risk.
Bruce Hallman I am afraid what Schwinn said is pretty much the response you will get from this site. It is all about freedom and nothing about safety or the rights of other people. In other words it is what he said, get the hell out of the way is what you will typically hear from this site.
I have no problem with bicycles on roadways. I have a problem with ANY slow vehicle on a faster roadway. As much as we, as a society, complain about speeders, the same should be said about slow-drivers. Both extremes are hazards on the roads. The safest drivers (riders, etc) are those who go at comparable speed to traffic flow.
With that in mind, bikers on the road in front of my house (speed limit 25-40, depending on section) have every right to be within the traffic flow, if they are going the same speed (ie, near the speed limit). However, if someone is very much slower, then I don’t care if they are on a bike, car, roller skates, moped, etc… they should get out of the way. Bikers TEND to be the slowest on the roads, and that’s probably where people tend to be anti-bikes… Remember, it’s not about them being on bikes… it’s about them being slow and in the way of (legally) faster traffic..
To Schwinn
I find your open mindedness refreshing, thanks. Point of fact: All vehicles have an equal legal right to use the road, motorized and foot powered. Another regrettable fact: The reckless speed of the majority of motorists on most roads in the country create a road hazard that is unacceptable to most potential bicyclists.
I am fully aware that on motorists.org motorists predominate. (Personally, I am both a motorist and a bicyclist.)
Just imagine, if in an alternate universe, the actions of bicyclists made the majority of roads death traps for motorists. Would motorists complain that their legally given right to the road was being infringed? It is a civil right issue really. One group of people is being denied a legal right (and killed daily), and why? In order to get somewhere a minute or two earlier?
Interestingly, there are few places in the world where cars and bicycles actually do share the roads more or less peacefully. The Netherlands, parts of Seattle, Portland and San Francisco etc.. What they all have in common is that on shared roads the vehicle behind grants a safe distance and right of way to the vehicle in front (foot powered or motor powered).
@Bruce Hallman
You are correct. I misinterpreted the last exemption, and as it is written, it is true that the biker does not have to keep-right, implying that they can use the entire lane if the lane is of “substandard width”. Thanks for pointing this out. (Hey, at least I can admit when I’m wrong!)
I will say that I don’t agree with this law for two reasons. One, because it allows the biker to take up the entire lane. I can see why it can’t be worded any other way, since allowing the car to pass would require that the car crosses the median (since it’s not wide enough for the car + bike) and that is certainly not something you want to allow in a law!
The other reason I don’t agree with it is because it’s too difficult to judge (while driving/riding) whether the lane is of “substandard width” or not. I mean, are we supposed to go out and measure the width of a road we’re on? I certainly don’t have a very good “eyesight measuring” skill, so I really couldn’t tell you if the road in front of my house is 14′ wide or not. There must be a better way to do this… and hence I don’t like the law as it is worded today.
But, again, you are correct, a “substandard width” road does not require the rider to keep right. Still, I think the rider should keep right, and let the faster vehicle behind them pass… as a common courtesy. I mean, I see people pull off the road to the right when they are really going slow in a car… there’s no reason a biker couldn’t do the same – law or not.
@Hubcap
Quite true… not sure why we took this in a totally different direction in the first place! On topic, I agree with the idea. I mean, in most states, you give tickets to people and then they can take a “defensive driving” course to help eliminate some of those points. This is a good thing. Therefore, if there is an accident… SOMEONE is to blame for it, and so someone should be reeducated on the rules… or they should just be paying more attention. Since you can’t “teach” people to pay more attention on the road, I suppose a “defensive driving” course is a good thing anyway.
Fact is, ANY improved driver training would be a good thing. Our current training methods to get a license are horribly inadequate. Train for better drivers to AVOID having accidents – that’s a REAL way to improve safety.
To answer Bruce again on this topic, I don’t think that speeding is the bane of our existance that it’s made out to be. As your article showed, people “speed” because speed limits are set artifically low. So, we have to simply throw out the posted limit, since it’s relatively meaningless. However, I do agree that in the vicinity of the biker, the “reasonable speed” is effectively reduced, so the car should pass slowly, and not at a ridiculous speed. Unfortunately, that story doesn’t tell us how fast the SUV passed this biker, so we don’t know if it was really “too fast” or what. Surely, the fact that the SUV passed so closely is a plain violation by the SUV driver, not the biker.
Responding to Hubcap:
You joke, I think. No one here is advocating for the Critical Mass law breakers.
But your flippant “drivers who crash a lot” statement diminishes the fact that one bicyclist is killed every day at the fault of an inattentive (and usually speeding) motorist.
The article advocates for tolerating speeding and substituting a ‘three accident’ rule. As if three accidents, (potentially killing bicyclists), is not a big deal.
Wow this thread went far afield! How did a look at possibly de-licensing drivers who crash a lot turn into a Critical Mass advocacy group?
In response to ”
By Bruce Hallman on Oct 15, 2008
Responding to Randall: Your advice to bicyclist to avoid using roads because they should “know the danger” is misplaced. Massachusetts Code Chapter 85, Section 11B says “bicyclists…shall have the right to use all public ways in the Commonwealth “. It is some motorists illegal failure to yield the road to bicyclists who are legally using the roads that causes the danger. You are blaming the victim. If you don’t like bicyclist legally sharing the road change the law. Don’t threaten to kill them and then blame them for not yielding to danger of your intimidation.
”
You may be right that the bicyclist has the legal right of way but I have a motorcycle and do not drive it on many roads because of safety reasons and that is doing the same speed as the motorists. You have not been on this site enough to read the posts of many on here that reflect a number of people on our roadways. It is all about speed and passing others that are only going 10 mph over the limit on two lane roads etc. I stick to driving a car to work just because of safety not that I want to.
Bruce Hallman I read the article you had a link to. I would have to agree with the policemen with the little information that I have. Since they did not give the man a ticket I think they can say anything they want to. I believe the man may have been wrong even if he was legal. If in fact there was paved road on the right side of the white line then it is very possible that it was a biking lane or meant for bikers use. Even if a biker is going the speed limit he should be off the main road if possible for his and the motorist safety because of limited visibility of him if nothing else. Maybe the policemen were just trying to convince the man to ride in the biking lane.
Responding to Schwinn.
I agree in theory that riding to the right, in so much as is practicable, is the law.
But your truncated quote of the law, omits the key phrase “…except under any of the following situations…” because the exceptions are giant.
I will skip most of your amateur legal interpretation because there is so much superior expert opinion available on this subject.
For instance, see this legal article (and many others similar):
http://www.velonews.com/article/72849
“If the lane is of substandard width, you are not required to ride to the right, period. ”
A ‘substandard width’ is any lane narrower than about 14 feet. Typical road lanes are 11 foot wide road lanes and are always substandard.
Bicyclists are indeed entitled to take the entire lane in many common circumstances.
@Bruce Hallman:
Actually, I’m not wrong, as the section you reference clearly states, and I quote:
“Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway”
What’s more, you cannot line up side by side either, as shown in 11-1206:
“Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.”
Therefore if a car travels on a roadway, the bicycle has to remain to the right, and never ride 2-abreast.
Yes, there are exceptions, as you noted, but these are not normal rules of the road. If the bicycle has to avoid a road hazard, then they certainly can come into the main part of the lane, but there is an expectation that they won’t just jump across without looking. You can’t just change lanes in a car without looking, so what makes you think it’s ok for a biker to do the same?
As for bikers turning left, they don’t need to be in the middle of the road either, as noted by section 11-1208(b):
“A person riding a bicycle or a moped intending to turn left shall approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist or moped driver shall stop, as much as practicable out of the way of traffic. After stopping the bicyclist or moped driver shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway the bicyclist had been using. After yielding, and complying with any official traffic control device or police officer regulating traffic on the highway along which he or she intends to proceed, the bicyclist or moped driver may proceed in the new direction.”
In other words, the biker moves to the RIGHT of the road, “out of the way of traffic”, then SIGNALS their intent to turn (part of ANY vehicle’s rule – bike or otherwise), then YIELD TO ANY TRAFFIC PROCEEDING IN EITHER DIRECTION before making the turn. All of these actions are intended to keep the biker out of the car-lane in the road, and make it safe for the biker to turn.
So, as long as the biker follows the normal rules of the road (ie, don’t cut people off) and stay to the right then there is no problem. You have to notice that bikers don’t have the right of way on the road… too many bikers think they naturally have the right of way – they don’t… that’s why even when turning left they are to YIELD to traffic in EITHER direction.
Note that NOWHERE does it state the biker is “entitled to occupy an entire lane on highways”.
In your second post, you quote MA law, but neglect to read further:
“Operators of bicycles shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) The operator shall ride single file on any way except when passing.”
I don’t see any mention of the “keep right” issue, so I can only assume that the federal rule applies.
Again, keep in mind, even in MA, nowhere does it say that the biker is allowed full reign of the road or lane…
Again, I’m not saying that speeding is good, but when the speed limit is set artificially low, then it’s not speeding (by definition of engineering studies). That being said, cars should always practice caution around pedestrians or bikers, but that doesn’t mean both can just ignore their own rules of travel either. They need to practice their own laws as well.
@Randall:
It may not be illegal in MD to travel in the left lane, but it is in many states: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
“Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic regardless of the speed limit.”
Bottom line is, it’s safer FOR EVERYONE for slower drivers to keep right.
Well then I guess all bicyclists should go slower than a horse drawn cart because it might spook the horses (Amish)
Oh wait no horses, you should still only go five mph.
Same logic you are using here.
No one wants to hit a bicyclist. This isn’t Death Race 2000. (although if you’ve ever seen the dumb cabbies & the dumb bike messengers in Chicago, you might disagree ;) )
George, I am not sure I understand your question. In the context of ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ speed for a motorist, the only safe speed is one which is slow enough to see (the sometimes difficult to see) bicyclist that might be legally using a road.
Which one is it Bruce, a bicyclist actually using the road, or a bicyclist that might be using the road?
Replying to Todd: Most (if not all) states already have laws governing slow moving vehicles. In California, the faster vehicles are required to slow down and wait until it is safe to pass. The slow moving vehicle has a right to travel, but is required to keep as right as is safe. And if five vehicles are impeded, the slow vehicle is required to pull over and let the faster vehicles pass at the first safe opportunity. That is the law. There is no requirement that a slow moving vehicle has to go faster than they can achieve. Slow bicyclists have a full right to use roads. Motorists have no right to go faster than is safe on a road shared with bicyclists.
To Bruce Hallman
Yes (I don’t know if this goes for all U.S. states) bicyclists do have the right to use the road however like I said before the person on the bike should be healthy enough so that they can keep a good speed. The reason why I am saying that bicyclists need to be healthy is because we can’t have them moving so slow or stoping in the middle of the road because they are out of energy. That would cause a traffic back up. Yes motorists should slow down when a bike is in their lane and if possible move to the left and pass the bike safely. The bottom line is that bicyclists and motorists need to work together meaning that motorists slow down and pass the bike on the left safely like I said before and as for the bicyclists they need to keep a good speed so they don’t back up traffic.
As for the bicyclists that can only move at speeds for 8 mph then those ones should ride or be allowed to ride on the side walk since they don’t really put people on the sidewalk at risk.
I really hope more bike lanes are made. If so that would be great!!!
Responding to Todd: While I would like more bike lanes, I am not holding my breath while I wait. In the mean time, the law is very clear. Bicycles have a full right to use the public roads. If you don’t like that, change the law. In the mean time, “safe drivers” respect the law and drive slow enough to not risk hitting bicyclist using the road. Speeding when bicyclists might be on the road (which is always) is unsafe.
By the way, there is powerful legal precedence that because drivers licenses are revocable (due to age/health/DUI status, etc.) and because interstate travel is protected by the US Constitution that an alternative form of locomotion (like bicycles and horses) is actually a Constitutionally protected right. Ironically bicycling is Constitutionally protected and motoring is not. Logically it is fair to claim that bicyclists (even those that can only travel slowly) have a greater non-revocable right to the road which motorists do not share because drivers licenses are revocable.
I would like people in charge of bycycle lanes to make the smaller lanes bigger because I got hit by a car because the lane was too small.
How about putting more bike lanes on the road, have all bikes come with a speedo, make sure that the person useing the bike is healthy enough to keep moving above 20-25mph, a law which states that the people on bikes can go no slower than 20-25 mph depending on the type of road and speed limit for vehicles, and 20 mph and below for small back roads. That should help to keep the speeds of bikes and vehicles near to the same which will help safety. Last educate motorists and bicyclist so that they learn to watch out for each other and be accomadating to one another. Thats just my idea so you people reading this posts can agree or disagree with me if you want.
As for the Freeways “Keep Right Expect to Pass” should become the law in which is strictly enforce since it will help faster and slower traffic to share the road in a safe manner however this does not mean for people to drive to slow or to fast for conditions. There is a quote from the book called “American Autobahn” which says “Only a fool passes a string of vehicles at 100 mph when the group is flowing along at 60, because it is impossible to stop in time” This is also true for this “Keep Right Except to Pass” law.
Responding to Randall: Your advice to bicyclist to avoid using roads because they should “know the danger” is misplaced. Massachusetts Code Chapter 85, Section 11B says “bicyclists…shall have the right to use all public ways in the Commonwealth “. It is some motorists illegal failure to yield the road to bicyclists who are legally using the roads that causes the danger. You are blaming the victim. If you don’t like bicyclist legally sharing the road change the law. Don’t threaten to kill them and then blame them for not yielding to danger of your intimidation.
In MD it’s not illegal for someone doing the sped limit to sit in the left lane. You can sit there all day and the cop can’t do anything. So if you ever notice an out of state Marylander driving you may notice that he sits in the left lane, a lot. Or if when you visit MD everyoe is in the left lane. Good luck getting that guy in front of you to get over. We end up passing on the right side quite a bit because of these drivers which may or may not be illegal in MD, not sure. But I’m sure this causes a lot of traffic congestion and accidents.
The speeding laws are quite lenient compared to some states around us like VA, PA, or DE. 1-9 over is 1 point. 10 to 29 over is 2 points and 30 and over is 5 points. Then on 65 mph roads its 1-19 over is 2 points and 20 and over is 5 points. So basically you can go 89mph on a 60 mph road and get 2 points. While when you get on a 65 mph road you get 5 points.
As for the bicyclists, stay on back roads. It’s dangerous to ride a bicycle on the road and bicyclists should know this and if they don’t there causing a danger by not recognizing how dangerous it truly is.
Responding to Schwinn: Wrong. Check the law; Uniform Vehicle Code section 11-1205 and similar State Codes. In virtually all states bicyclists are entitled to occupy an entire lane on highways. (Freeways and toll bridges are limited exceptions.) The “ride to the right rule” has many exceptions allowing the bicyclist to take a full lane to avoid debris, to pass other cyclists, and for making left turns, etc.. There is no way a speeding motorist can observe the broken glass debris blocking the shoulder path, or know when a bicyclist might be preparing for a left turn. Therefore speeding on highways and roads is always an indication of a motorist not driving preemptively to avoid bicyclist that might be legally using a road lane.
Your ‘speed differential’ proposal is actually the present law. As speed limits are not the upper limit and contain the clause that the ‘safe speed’ for current conditions is the actual speed limit. Current conditions include preemptively anticipating a bicyclist (passing, left turning, or avoiding shoulder debris) in a roadway lane.
I believe that the reason why agencies are so reluctant to revoke someone’s license, is in part because public transportation in most of the united states is dismal at best. In many cases, revoking driving privileges will eliminate a person’s ability to make a living.
Should public transportation be developed on par with other developed nations, I think pulling someone’s license would be much easier.
I believe the article was directed more towards removing the current obsession with “speeding” as an accident prone activity. That being said, most “speeding” happens on highways, where bicycles are not allowed, so your point is moot.
Still, even in slower traffic areas, where bicycles are allowed, you are dealing with basic rules of the road. If these are followed, then even the bikers are quite safe. The road in front of my house is listed at 35mph, and bikers travel it all the time. Most traffic drives at 40-45mph, and there is no danger to the bikers that follow the rules. Of course, there are always idiots who don’t stay to the right, or travel side-by-side in pairs… neither of these is a fault of the car-driver.
In any case, if the speed limits are set reasonably (based on the road and traffic study rules) your point is moot. Bicycles will naturally avoid faster roads, because of the risk (as they should) and the majority of people (ie, car-drivers) get to travel more efficiently.
Still, I have often considered the following possibility: What if everyone drove the same speed? The problem (again, on highways) is that people don’t drive the same speed – some are slow, and some are faster. It is this speed difference that causes accidents… after all, if everyone drove the exact same speed, then we would have fewer accidents (except for vehicle failure, or side-swiping; the latter is a fault of the driver, not the speed). So, in that situation, the speed is relatively irrelevant… proving again, that speed, alone, is the not the problem.
So, maybe we should start enforcing speed-differentials instead? I know, it’s not easy to do this… but the point is, keep the slower people to the right (already an existing unenforced law), and make sure people accelerate to the speed of traffic BEFORE merging. People here in MA simply cannot get this last part right at all… they love to stop at the end of the onramp, and leave no space to accelerate. How about making THAT illegal, too, while we’re at it?
By law, virtually all public roadways are shared by all vehicles including bicycles. In no case are speeding motorists safe because faster speed reduces their ability to observe and their duty to avoid collision with slower (and hard to see) vehicles like bicycles that share that road.
Waiting for the *actual* accidental collision with a cyclist before we call speeding unsafe is flawed logic. Good drivers are preemptive.