A rchive Date
[ 08-06-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[Driven to distraction
By GEORGE JONAS
Toronto Sun
June 1, 2000
Big Nurse is getting ready to mess with the inmates again.This time she wishes to stick her unsightly nose into the way people use their cellular telephones. She has already done so in several jurisdictions.
New York City cab drivers aren't permitted to dial while driving. In one Ohio township a bylaw prohibits drivers from using cellphones altogether on the road. Aspen, Col., only allows the use of hands-free phones in cars, and so on. It's a marvel legislation hasn't been introduced yet. We usually lead the world in silly laws of this kind.
What gives Big Nurse the excuse is the fact that driver distractions can be deadly. In a one-year period, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration attributed one fatal accident in four to driver distraction of some sort. (I consider this a low number, frankly; I'd say driver distraction plays at least a contributing role in most accidents.)
There's no doubt that inattention kills. It's far more likely to cause mayhem than mere speed or aggressiveness. A driver who pays no heed to what he's doing is a bigger menace than the one who concentrates on his driving but exceeds the speed limit by 20 clicks or so - especially where the limit is unrealistic to begin with, and is posted for reasons of revenue rather than safety.
But drivers who pay insufficient attention - or who don't know how to split their attention between driving and other chores - are a menace on the road, no matter whether they use cellular phones, chat with their passengers, or convey children or pets. The man who nearly killed author Stephen King wasn't using a cellular phone in his car; he was attempting to discipline his dog.
Drivers who can't "multitask" on some elementary level are dangerous whether they're dialling telephones, searching for street addresses, or checking their makeup in the rear-view mirror. It's immaterial whether a driver quarrels long distance or with an actual passenger: the distraction is the same. Stopping drivers from having "stressful" conversations on a car phone only makes sense if we're prepared to stop them from having stressful conversations while driving, period. (For example, spouses should never travel in the same vehicle.)
QUICK CONVERSATIONS
The whole thing is absurd. Car phones require no genius. Police officers use two-way communications while chasing crooks. Race car drivers talk with pit crews at 200 mph. Pilots routinely tune radios and jot down clearances, in addition to consulting charts and navigational equipment. They often do so in single-pilot cockpits, without the aid of co-pilots or autopilots. Some even use hand-held microphones.
Phones in cars, especially the hands-free variety, are safe for drivers of average skill. Drivers, that is, who have at least the self-discipline and attention span of a rhesus monkey. What about people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Well, perhaps individuals who haven't the necessary skill or discipline for multitasking shouldn't be driving at all. Perhaps only drivers who pass basic scanning and split-attention tests should use phones behind the wheel - but then those who can't, shouldn't be allowed to carry passengers either, especially children.
Modern cars, like airplanes, are increasingly being equipped with navigation and communication devices. Global Positioning Systems - GPS - are mildly distracting, but they're likely to become standard equipment in cars. Even fax machines may be common enough, just as data links are now in many cockpits.
The solution isn't to tell drivers what technology to use. The solution is to train them in the technology they're using. If necessary, we can test drivers after training, just as pilots are trained and licensed for the use of different equipment. (For example, for a private pilot's licence one needs to demonstrate that one can use a radio; for a recreational pilot's licence one doesn't, etc.)
This ought to be the solution in a free and intelligent society. I'm afraid it will not be the solution in ours.
Our society may never have been particularly intelligent; by now neither is it particularly free. We'll tackle the problem by a gathering of Big Nurses, many of whom hate automobiles, and all of whom hate autonomous individuals. We'll listen to their hysterical bleating - they're doing it all in our interest, blah, blah - after which we'll provide them with yet another platform on which to substitute their judgment for our own.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|