Livable Communities

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  Come January 1, we will be opening the book on a brand new decade.  In 2010 I will be spending a considerable amount of this space talking about how to make Billerica a “Livable Community.”

I was thinking about this after I read a story in the Globe about what happens when senior citizens give up driving.  At least one study suggests that it leads to depression, loneliness, isolation, and moving into assisted living sooner.  The story described alternate ways of getting around, such as shuttles and ride services.  These are good ways of keeping older people mobile, but there is a better way: Put the things people need within walking distance from home.

This is one of the biggest components of Livable Communities.  It solves several problems at once.  Aside from reducing risk of people driving with diminished capabilities and improving mobility without automobiles, walking is excellent exercise.  You rarely hear people in, say, Cambridge, complaining that they can’t get where they need to go.  Transit service is outstanding and in many cases stores, doctors, and dozens of other services are within a ten-minute walk of home.

I appreciate that Cambridge is a city and that most of us moved out here to Billerica to get away from the city.  But we can take advantage of most of the concepts of Livable Communities to improve the quality of life for everyone.

While this is a phrase that hasn’t made it into the mainstream yet, those of us in the planning, transportation, urban design, development, and land use business have been talking about Livable Communities for a few years now.  I wrote an article for Public Roads, a publication of the Federal Highway Administration, in 2006 on the subject.  The AARP has a Livable Communities Team.

We have some work to do to meet the challenges coming our way over the next ten years.  By 2025, one-quarter of all Americans will be over 65.  We need to find a way to keep them mobile after they are no longer able to drive.  How will we account for rising gas prices — what do you suppose a gallon of regular will cost in 2020?  Ten dollars?  We are running out of land to build new roads.  In short, we need to shift some of our travel away from the driving mode and onto others (transit, bicycling, walking) and we will have to shorten our trips.

This all points to building neighborhoods where everything is closer to home.  The is the opposite of the Wal-Mart model, of course, where you build one giant store far from everything.  This model won’t survive rising energy prices and more crowded roads — it’s not “sustainable.”  As we move through the next decade, people will begin to choose smaller (smaller houses, smaller cars) and closer (closer shopping and shorter commutes).  People will return to quality over cheap.  The answer to these choices is Livable Communities.

Former Globe architecture critic Anthony Flint agrees, and wrote about “infill” recently.  Currently the director of public policy at the Urban Land Institute, Flint says we should take advantage of vacant and underused lots and put together mixed-use developments.

I don’t have to tell you how many blighted properties are begging for attention in Billerica.  There are two ways to approach this problem.  One way is to build more of the same fast and cheap strip malls, office parks, and apartment buildings (hello Aspen)–  places that cannot by reached without driving.  The other is to weave these places together as Livable Communities.  Imagine a retiree living a full day without having to worry about turning left onto the 4-lane section of Boston Road or waiting for a ride.  For people on a fixed income, making most of their trips free — as walking is, of course — is a huge benefit.

Billerica in 2009 looks mostly the same as it did in 2000.  But in 2020, this town will have to be much different to keep up with the changing times.

Are you excited by the future?  Or afraid of it?

Pedestrian at Risk

Today it was me.  I was almost hit while crossing the street in a crosswalk on my way to work in Cambridge.  The driver had a phone in her hand.  Her attitude after the near-miss was infuriating.

At about 8:30 this morning, I was crossing the south side of the intersection of Broadway at Prospect Street.  While Prospect is three lanes wide, it is only about 32 feet wide and the corners are tight.  It’s certainly a busy corner, but I’ve crossed it many times before since it is one block away from City Hall Annex where I work.

The WALK light came on and I stepped into the street.  I do not use an iPod or a phone when I walk in the city because you have to pay full attention anytime you are in the street, crosswalk or no.

In Cambridge, the green light is on at the same time, so cars can turn left or right across the crosswalk.  (I know this sounds crazy to some of you, but this is a good idea, and another day I will explain why we do it this way.)  An old red Ford Explorer started to make a right.  I looked the driver in the face — something I always do — to make sure she saw me.  But she wasn’t slowing down.  I was right between her headlights. I broke into a run and made it to the curb, but she was a few feet away from striking me.

Had I not been looking at the truck, she would have hit me.  Or if she had been turning left from the other direction, she would have been coming from behind me and I would not have seen her.  She was doing between 10 and 15 MPH, I would say.  I would have been hit by the high bumper between my hip and rib cage.  Probably a few broken bones, but I would have survived.  If she had not known that she hit me — something hit and drivers often say — she would have run me over.  If I was much shorter — say a child walking to school or the playground a hundred yards away — the crash would have been severe.

When I reached the curb, I looked at her to let her know she had done something wrong.  She stopped and rolled down the window.  She still had the phone in her hand.  The first thing she said was, “You should be more careful.”

As the law (Chapter 90 MGL) is written, I was not doing the wrong thing.  She failed to yield on the turn, and she knew it.  That’s why she stopped.   If she were a complete jerk, she would have blown the horn, sworn at me, and sped away.  But yelling at me was her way of releasing the stress of nearly hitting me.

Forgive the armchair psychology, but I have witnessed this same scene dozens of times in my career.  Working as the City’s traffic engineer, part of my job is to watch intersections.  Trust me when I tell you that these confrentations are not rare.  In Cambridge, they involve cyclists, too.  In a near miss, exchange is always the same — the motorist never admits to doing anything wrong or is sorry.

But when a crash occurs, the driver is despondent and keeps apologizing and saying OMG over and over.

Strange.

Anyway, I think she knew she had taken her eyes off the road and that was wrong.  She didn’t want me to yell at her about it.  But I did.  I was angry and scared.  I kept saying things like, “put the phone down and don’t pick it up again.  You are going to hit someone at the next intersection.  You are going to hurt someone.  You almost hit me.”

Her answer: “But I didn’t hit you.  Have a nice day.”

After she drove off, I’ll bet she felt bad about it.  She was probably shaking as much as I was, if not more, “OMG, I almost hit that guy.  What if I had hit him?  What if he was hurt?  What if I killed him?”  Later, when she calmed down, I’d wager it bothered her tremendously.

Would it get her to stop using the phone in the car?  Probably not.  And that’s why it needs to be against the law.

Did I get her plate number?  No, because it doesn’t matter.  The RMV used to have a process by which you could complain about drivers, but they abandoned the program a few years ago.  Interestingly, I do have access to the RMV database at work, so I could have pulled her name an address, but what could I do with it?  Legally, nothing.

If you think I go too far with the extreme changes I have suggested in this space about the driving laws, this is why.  You’ll think it is necessary, and necessary now, after you nearly get crushed by an SUV.

The Detroit of Massachusetts

Countless abandoned properties.  Boarded up, vandalized buildings.  Acres of empty, neglected parking lots.

Is it Flint?  Detroit?  Cleveland?  Pittsburgh, maybe?

No sir.  It is your own Billerica, Massachusetts.  Buried in a story about a property tax increase, Billerica Assessor Richard Scanlon tells the Lowell sun that, “unfortunately, between 20 percent and 25 percent of the town’s commercial and industrial property is currently vacant.”

I nearly spit out my Raisin Bran.  As much as a quarter of our lucrative commercial land is empty.  A total waste.  And it is costing us millions in tax revenue.  Not to mention missing out on the pleasant places and services that we would have is something new is built there.

While everyone in town is blaming someone else (Selectmen, Parker School people, imaginary Town Managers, etc.) no one is talking about how to get more money off the commercial half of the tax levy.  Right now residential payers pick up 59% of the bill.

You have two choices: wring your hand and blame someone else for your tax bill.  Or you can step forward and bring some ideas on how to make the situation better.  What will it be?

Here are two ideas that made news just this week in the middle of a bad economy.  In Lynn, city government is taking command of land by the waterfront (via eminent domain) in favor of 6 million square feet of mixed use development.  (Thanks to Rick with the tip on this story.)  Closer to home — right next door, in fact — a developer in Tewksbury will replace an old auto parts building on Main Street with a 13,500 square foot commercial building.  The development will include retail, office, and restaurant space, and with only one story it is not quite mixed use, but it sure will be an improvement.

This two communities are improving themselves by building new commercial infrastructure.  Other than stonewalling zoning improvements, what is Billerica doing?

One Vote for Main Street

Regular readers will remember I visited the upgraded downtown Reading a while ago.  Now, Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham has noticed, too.  She likes the festive holiday atmosphere and supporting local businesses.

Still waiting for that “ode to the mall” penned by any writer.  You won’t find it.  People who insist the big chains are saving them money may be right (although, have they ever really checked?), but life is not about numbers.  It is about having a pleasant experience around other human beings with the little free time we have.  “Getting value” is code for “buying as much crap as I can possibly cram in the SUV with the same money.”  In a country strewn with self-storage warehouses, do we truly need more stuff in our lives?  Is this making us happy?

No.  We need Main Street, the keystone of civic life.  If we let Main Street die out, Wal-mart will be the only retailer within 25 years.  And no one there will recognize you.

December 10 Column

Christmas is a nice time of year, especially if you’re a kid.  Or if you have kids.  And as long as you stay away from the mall.  In this column, Holiday Spending Doublethink, I get a little carried away talking about Americans spending money at Christmastime.

(Yes, I am reading Nineteen Eighty-Four again.  More on that later.)

All of are leading some sort of double life.  No, I don’t mean Tiger Woods.  I mean fiscally.  Most of us have great ideas — some very specific — on how the town (or state, or Congress) can better spen money.  But at the time, how many of us know as much about our own finances?  How many of us check the stock prices of our retirement portfolio every day in horror while never balancing our checkbook?  How many of us know — to the penny — how much money we spent in, say, October versus how much we earned?  Do we know what our savings rate is?  So we have a long-term savings plan?  Do we know what percentage of our income we spend on housing, food, transportation, entertainment, vacations, etc.?

Polls this time of year ask the wrong questions.  They ask, “how much will you spend on Christmas?”  I’ll bet you most of the respondents answer “ummmm” before they make up an answer.

Here’s what the polls should ask:

• How many people are on your shopping list this year?
• What is your spending limit for each person?
• If you are spending less this year due to the recession, are you buying for fewer people or spending less per person?
• How many months have you been putting aside money to spend on Christmas?
• How many of the gifts you received last year do you still remember?

I would relish Americas being asked questions like this, since they rarely ask themselves.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, we each spent an average $535 on Christmas in 2008.  That sounds very high to me, especially when you consider that half us us spent even more than that.  Was it worth it?  When many of us get excitred about $100 per-household tax bill increase, I wonder where our priorities are.  Vanity trumps community.

Trees Grow Up Around Us

I said I would lay off mixed use talk for a while, but I saw two stories in the paper that caught my attention.  The cities of Quincy and Revere are close to breaking ground on large projects.  In Quincy, it is a $1.4 billion investment in its downtown.  At Revere Beach, the plan is a $47 million boost to the waterfront.

Meanwhile, sprawling, blighted Route 1 in Peabody is littered with empty big boxes — erased by the recession — is in a terrible sad state.  Peabody has lost thousands in tax revenue.  It will be lucky to get its truck stop back.

Did you shudder?  I just did.

The lesson here:  mixed use can weather a bad economy.  Sprawl usually can’t.

Hats in the Ring

Sure, there may be a big Senate primary vote tomorrow, but local politics are already heating up.  Planning Board Chairman Paul Marasco has announced that he will run for Selectman in April 2010.  He will challenge incumbents Mike Rosa and Bob Correnti for 2 seats.

The nomination papers aren’t even available yet (January), but to have a little early campaigning is great news.  More competition and interest in local elections is always good.

Mr. Marasco is an interesting candidate.  While Bob Casey took most of the media attention during the Home Depot process, Mr. Marasco was the chairman at the time.  He also cast the deciding “no” vote on that permit, which made the tally 3-3.  He knew there would be a lawsuit, but he voted against the permit anyway, and that took a lot of guts.

On the other hand, Mr. Marasco’s candidacy will bring the “HD people” out of the woodwork again.  They still think the Planning Board ruined any chance we had to fix up the mall.  No.  The recession killed the HD Billerica.

But what an interesting matchup between Marasco and Rosa.  If people vote issues, this could be a referendum on mixed use, much like Mr. Casey and Marti Mahoney’s PB wins were (in my opinion) votes against HD.  Marasco supported the mixed use TM articles — although somewhat quietly — while Rosa made a long speech at the podium in which he insisted someone would build apartments on top of the Mall.  So they clearly have very different visions for the future of the center.  Here’s hoping that Billerica center, growth in general, and economic development are big campaign issues for the both of them.

My view on Rosa is that he is in big trouble.  Aside from his ranting mixed use speech, he vigorously opposed the Parker School as well.  He made a speech on the TM floor for this one, too, only to see just 29 TMMs vote against it and the voters approve it a month later.  The town’s attitude is changing in a progressive way, but all Rosa is doing is hanging on to his anti-tax approach.  Will Marasco beat him on quality of life issues? Will the parents who voted for the Parker return to the polls in April and remember Rosa’s name?

Of course, for Rosa to lose his seat, he will have to come in third place, and he garnered more votes than Correnti the last time around.  This assumes there isn’t a 4th candidate for the BOS come January.

In other news, acting Moderator Gil Moreira will run for the post in April.  This is great news.  I don’t imagine he will have an opponent.

Why Speeding is Dumb

Sammy Hagar made it officially OK in 1984. His rebel anthem “I Can’t Drive 55″ blared from the stereo speakers of Camaros and IROC Zs all across the USA that summer, giving countercultural permission to all 17-year-old boys to do whatever they wanted, even with cops around.

Twenty-five years later, we are still a nation of bad-asses, even in our mini-vans and Honda Fits. We can’t help ourselves. It’s the only law God-fearing PTO mothers and mousy middle managers break every day. For some of us, it’s the only thing that makes us feel alive:

Breaking the speed limit.

Speeding is either fun or necessary, depending on your point of view. But it’s also dangerous, wasteful, and stupid. Driving the speed limit has many pleasant benefits. I can hear you snickering.  Hear me out.

The Numbers

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that one-third of all fatal crashes are caused by speeding. This amounts to around 14,000 people killed in the US every year. By way of comparison, a total of about 5,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2001.

About Speed Limits

Speed limits are not set arbitrarily nor randomly. They are not set by police to maximize revenue from tickets. They are not set by the government to annoy you.

Speed limits are set instead by highway engineers. Limits are related to the road’s “design speed.” When designing a highway, the engineer must assume a speed for all calculations. Higher-speed roads must be straighter, flatter, and wider. The speed limit is set below the design speed as a “factor of safety.” In other words, if you design a road for 70 MPH and set the limit at 60 MPH, a car that slightly exceeds the limit can still safely use the road. (Similarly, a building or bridge is built stronger than how it’s expected to be used — just in case.)

When the rubber hits the road, however, people drive at a speed at which they feel comfortable. This comfortable speed varies by driver and by road. So if we know that many people are comfortable driving closer to the design speed than the posted limit, why don’t we just set the limit higher?

Because the gap between the posted limit and the design speed is our safety net. Imagine how many more speed-related deaths we would have if we cut this safety net and pumped up all posted highway limits by 10 MPH. I don’t even want to think about it.

Speed limits on rural, suburban, and urban streets are set in similar ways. Additional factors are involved, such as population density, proximity to school zones and playgrounds, and roadside objects like trees and utility poles.

You have your reasons for speeding and why you think it’s perfectly safe.

“If I don’t speed, I will be late for work”

Does speeding save you time? Sure! Makes sense, doesn’t it? But how much time does it really save you? Let’s do the math. We’ll assume you are going to Boston from Billerica, a 20 mile trip. And we’ll also assume that all of those 20 miles are on the highway with a 65 MPH speed limit. Finally, we will assume you can sustain your speed for the entire trip. Here are the results:

Speed (MPH)	Travel Time (min.)
65	18.5
70	17.1
75	16.0
80	15.0

So under ideal conditions, driving 15 MPH over the speed limit saves you a robust three-and-a-half minutes. The real number is much lower, of course, since some of those 20 miles are not highway miles. Plus, it would be impossible to sustain 80 MPH unless the highway were completely empty — you would be constantly slowing down for other cars.

In other words, on this trip you would be saving about three minutes by speeding, and probably much less than that. Meanwhile, you are putting yourself (and others) in a greater danger for a crash — no to mention an expensive speeding ticket. Not worth it. Besides, if you get in trouble with your boss for being three lousy minutes late, you need a new job.

“If I drive the speed limit, I feel like I’m crawling”

Every car I have ever owned has been quieter than the last — and I’ve never owned anything fancier than a Chevy Celebrity. Even today’s economy cars are loaded with insulation and have excellent aerodynamics compared to just ten years ago. These features cut down on wind, engine, and tire noise. Noise is one of the “cues” that gives you a feel for how fast you are going.

If you’ve ever gone 30 MPH downhill on a bicycle — with the wind in your face and the unforgiving pavement roaring past inches beneath you — you know that feeling. And going that fast on a bicycle is not a comfortable feeling because of those cues.

Inside our cozy car, we are mostly removed from the blazing speed at which we are traveling, especially when the rest of the cars on the highway are going about the same speed and there aren’t any objects right on the side of the road whizzing by. But I assure you — at 65 MPH, you are not crawling.

How fast is 65? At that speed, you are going 95.6 feet every second. At 80, you are going 117.6 feet per second. Walking pace is a little more than 4 feet per second.

For a true feel, walk to the edge of your favorite freeway and stand as close as you feel safe doing so. Watch the cars go by at warp speed for a few minutes. Feel uncomfortable? Of course you do. Because 65 MPH is fast.

“I’m a great driver. I have great reaction time. If something happens, I can swerve or brake in time.”

Are you sure? Your life depends on it.

Highway engineers have studied human reaction time extensively. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has settled on an assumed perception-reaction time of 2.5 seconds. It’s true that your pure reaction time might be between 0.15 and 0.20 seconds, but this is when you know the stimulus is coming. Researchers call this the “alert condition.” Under normal conditions, such driving, reaction time is around 1.5 seconds. Then you must add on the time to physically move your foot from the gas to the brake. So when a barrel rolls off the truck in front of you, two-and-a-half full seconds elapse before your brakes even engage.

Then, from 60 MPH, most vehicles with brand-new tires need about 140 feet to stop on dry pavement. So the total distance required to stop from 60 mph is 360 feet, or more than a football field! And that assumes the pavement isn’t wet, your tires don’t have 30,000 miles on them, and that your eyes are on the road and not your cell phone. At 80 MPH, total braking distance is a whopping 545 feet.

So how close is that car in front of you that you are tailgating?

You may consider yourself a world-class driver, but you can’t defeat physics. Slow down.

“But I have a high performance car”

Good for you. Yes, a more expensive car might have a tighter suspension, but that does not help you in a panic stop. Anti-lock brakes (ABS) can cut down on braking distance considerably on snow, ice, or rain and a few percentage points on dry pavement. But your car can’t help you react faster. Even if your special high performance car can cut your total braking distance to 450 feet at 80 MPH (which I seriously doubt), this is still much more room than you would need with a regular car at 60 MPH.

“My car has lots of safety features”

Congratulations. You are more likely to survive a crash than if your car were not equipped with them. However, in a high speed crash, your body (including your very fragile brain) will be stopping very, very quickly, meaning you will be subjected to extremely high “G” forces. There isn’t a safety feature you can buy that will save you from a 20-G crash. And the faster you are going before the crash, the higher the G forces will be during the crash.

“Everyone else does it”

They sure do. I have a friend who says people speeding are late for their accident. “Everyone else” is going to be involved in a crash someday soon. It is only a matter of time — ten million cars are involved in crashes every year. If you choose to engage in a high-risk behavior such as speeding on a freeway among trucks 10 times heavier than you, your chance of being in a crash goes way above the average. Your best chance of staying out of the that group of 10,000,000 wrecked cars this year is to reduce your speed.

“But driving fast is fun”

Driving on a road with other people is not a video game. Your vehicle is very heavy and in one instant, it can cause injury or death to yourself, someone in your car, or a stranger outside your car. If you kill someone because you were having “fun” speeding in your fast car, you will live with it for the rest of your life.

You want thrills? Play a video game or drive a real mini race car at F1 Boston.

Advantages of Driving the Speed Limit

I drive the speed limit, and I live a fulfilling, happy, meaningful life. So can you.

Better fuel mileage

Driving 80 MPH versus 65 MPH results in much higher air “drag” — a force that pulls your car backwards. The engine must work harder to counteract this drag, using more gas. Driving the limit will save you money on gas. How much you save depends on the kind of car you have, but you will notice a difference.

Better chance of getting home alive

The safety benefits of driving slower are immeasurable. I’ve covered just a few above. The exact numbers are hard to calculate, but I can assure you that your odds of not being involved in a crash go way, way up when you are traveling at the speed limit.

Lower stress level

If you drive 80 MPH, you are constantly changing lanes to weave around slower cars, right? Changing lanes is not a cinch at this speed, either. But at the speed limit, few vehicles on the road are slower than you, except for the odd semi on an uphill. You can set your cruise control at the speed limit, sit back, and enjoy the ride. No more lane changes. Let “everyone else” pass you.

Never get a speeding ticket

So you think the police are out to get you. Or they have quotas. Or they target you because you have a red car. Whatever you believe, they can’t pull you over if you aren’t speeding. This will save you real money in fines, court costs, and insurance costs.

Before you laugh, try driving the speed limit for a week. If you feel ridiculous driving “slow” and following the law, all I can say is it takes some getting used to.

How to Reduce Car Crashes

About 40,000 people are killed by automobiles every year, making them more dangerous than guns.  A vast majority of car crashes are caused by poor decisions by the operator.  (Only a small number can be blamed purely on weather conditions, mechanical failure of the automobile, or some sort of road defect).  Experts estimate that one-third of all fatal crashes are cause by speeding and an another one-third by “impaired” driving (i.e. drunk or distracted).  All of these crashes are preventable if we are willing to dedicate 100% of our attention to the driving task and act responsibly within reasonable limits.

But we are not always willing to do either of those things.  So if we are serious about preventing crashes in the future, we must raise the standards of what we consider acceptable behavior on public roads.  That means we need to take certain people off the road — in some cases, permanently.

There are three basic areas in which a person may not be fit to drive:

• Physical.  While not as demanding as, say, rugby, driving does require adequate strength, vision, hearing, and reflexes.  Older people are at risk for all of these things, but physical deficiencies could certainly be an issue at any age.  Even with power brakes and steering, you need enough brawn to slam the pedal in a panic stop.  You have to be able to turn your head and look over your shoulder when coming out of a side street.  You need good peripheral vision.  The list goes on.  Physical abilities that we younger people take for granted deteriorate slowly as we age.
• Mental.  Operating an automobile does not require an advanced degree in aeronautic engineering.  But you can’t be a dope and drive safely.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of written rules of the road, all of which we should know.  Then there are the countless unwritten “jungle” rules that govern how the roads work.  Good drivers must know how to adjust in poor weather conditions.  They should even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics (inertia, friction, force, momentum, energy, etc.).  A driver should know as much about his car and how it works with the road as a carpenter knows his tools.
• Emotional.  You wouldn’t want a crazy person to carry a gun.  Do you want a nut driving on the roads with you?  People who have problems with anger and can’t stay calm when driving and who are subject to road rage should not be allowed to drive.  Same with people who have the wrong idea about the law, such as the belief that speed limits and other regulations are for everyone else.  Yes, most 17-year-old people are not mature enough to drive.  But there are plenty of twenty-somethings who haven’t grown up yet either.  Occasionally you’ll encounter middle-aged people who act (and drive) like children too.

I know what you’re thinking.  That I’ve covered just about every person on the road with my descriptions of possible deficiencies above.  That may be true.  But at the very least we need to be aware of the laundry list of deficiencies people can carry with them when they climb into the cockpit of their 200-plus horsepower, two-ton machines.

At work I read a few hundred crash reports taken by the Cambridge Police Department every year.  The narratives of these incidents give me a backstage pass to the poor behavior that is rampant on the roads.  After plowing through a pile of these reports, I find myself rubbing my eyes, thinking that it’s a miracle anyone of us make it home alive.

If we want to make our roads safer for us, our kids, our families and friends, and anyone else we care about, we must take bad drivers off the road.  We have to make good driving valuable by taking the privilege of driving away from people who can’t be bothered to care about being safe.

Here’s how we can do it: I propose a new, high standard of driver responsibility and penalties for failing to meet them.

Every driver should be graded, similar to the point system we have now.  There would be four tiers: A, B, C, and D.

• Tier A:  Good driver.  Full privileges.  Driver’s license does not expire; no trip to the RMV necessary.
• Tier B:  On notice. Full privileges, but license must be renewed within one year.
• Tier C:  Probation.  Regulations pertaining to young drivers apply, such as: no one under 18 allowed in the car, may not drive between 1 am and 5 am, etc.
• Tier D:  Indefinite suspension.  In order to regain license, must complete a safe driving class, anger management, a written test, road test, or any combination of the above as designated by a judge.

At age 16 1/2, you begin on Tier C.  Moving up and down tiers would work as follows:

• Without any moving violations or crashes caused, you move up to Tier B at age 18.
• Without any moving violations or crashes caused, you move up to Tier A at age 25.
• At any age, any moving violation or crash caused results in an instant 7-day suspension and moves you down a tier.
• To move up to Tier A or B after age 25, you must meet with the head of the the Traffic Division at your town’s police department and explain your moving violation or crash.  If the police are convinced, they can recommend to the RMV that you may be promoted.

Drunk and distracted driving:

• If you are caught driving drunk or texting, you move down to Tier D.
• If you are cause a crash while drunk or texting, you move down to Tier D and you may not apply for reinstatement for 10 years.

Other forms or distracted driving:

• Under these regulations, everything with a screen (cell phones, MP3 players, navigation systems, televisions, laptops, etc.) would be barred from the front seat unless a passenger is present.  The passenger would be allowed to use these devices, but a driver caught using them would move down two tiers.

Commercial Driver’s Licenses (including school bus drivers):

• A CDL would have only two tiers, A and D.  People who transport cargo or people for a living are on the roads much more frequently than everyone else.  They also drive larger, more dangerous vehicles.  Therefore they carry an even greater responsibility for the welfare of others on the road.  One moving violation or incident of distracted driving, and they are demoted to Tier D.  A CDL driver who causes a serious crash or is caught drunk or texting will not be allowed to apply for reinstatement for 10 years.  Since their livelihood depends on their CDL, professional drivers would have the ultimate incentive to drive responsibly.

No one understands the Safe Driver Insurance Plan (SDIP), but everyone knows A, B, C, and D.  By assigning “grades” to drivers, everyone will know where they stand.  If you are a “C” driver, maybe you would be a little ashamed of it and try to move up.  Maybe people will aim to be an “A” driver for their entirelife after age 25.

And maybe not.  But being a poor driver should not be accompanied with a snicker and a story about our last speeding ticket, which is our attitude now.  We should have pride in good behavior on the road, and scorn those who are not responsible drivers — at any age.

Recent Car Crashes Kill, Maim

It sickens me to report on this, but I committed to doing it.  The last 10 days or so have been very bad on our streets, both locally and around the country.  Here are some of the more recent incidents:

1. This morning, one man was killed and another lost his leg in a work zone crash on Route 3 in Chelmsford.  The men were cleaning up a fuel spill.  A vehicle left the road and struck them.  Two drivers of other vehicles were also hurt during the incident.  Police can’t say yet why the vehicle left the roadway.
2. Sunday morning a Billerica woman, Bonnie Lee Hicks, 43, struck a 19-year-old man while he was walking to his job at an assisted living facility.  He was in a crosswalk.  Hicks was drunk.  The crash occurred at 6:30 in the morning.  The man is still in a drug-induced coma.  A judge released Hicks and told her not to drive.  Hicks was driving an uninsured, unregistered car with no inspection sticker.  She has a long history of moving violations.  This crash comes one week after another Billerica woman, Leila Henry, got drunk and hit a child on a scooter near the train station.
3. A former Weston police chief, James J. McShane, 62, was arraigned yesterday on drunk driving charges following a November 16 crash.  One of the occupants of the car struck, a 82-year-old woman, was in the hospital for two weeks.  McShane also injured two others in the collision.  It is the third time McShane has been charged with drunk driving.
4. In Lousiana, a minivan stuffed with 13 children — yes, I said thirteen — blew a tire and rolled over on the highway.  The driver and five children were killed.  No one in the vehicle was wearing a seat belt.  Most of the occupants were ejected.  A witness described a macabre scene of children flying out of the vehicle as it was rolling.
5. In California, Steven Culbertson, 19, ran a red light and crashed his Mini Cooper into a minivan, killing all four family members inside.  His made contact with two other cars before hitting the van.  How fast does a tiny Mini Cooper have to be going to hit two cars before slamming into a minivan — which usually do very well in side-impact tests — and killing everyone inside?  Police estimate between 70 and 90 mph.  He had a previous drunk driving conviction, in 2007.
6. On Sunday in Fitchburg, Cesar Cedeno Jr., 35, of Fitchburg was caught driving drunk with three children in the car.  The kids were ages 11, 7, and 4.  His BAC was 0.18.  He was charged with child endangerment.

Are you angry yet?  Angry enough to change laws that allow people with poor driving records, including the people above, to continue driving on the same roads as you?  If we had tougher laws and registry rules, as I have advocated in this space, some of these deaths and injuries would have been prevented.

Part of the problem is the press itself.  Stories of crashes #2 and #3 were buried on page B12 of this morning’s Globe Metro section, hidden between obits and the weather page.  What was on the front page of the Metro section?  A story about how cool the Harvard University admissions dean is.  Second, news stories about fatal car crashes aalways include a paragraph about how bad traffic was backed up as a result.  Why?  Who cares about a little traffic when people have lost their lives in a horrific crash?  Do press outlets have no feeling at all of how serious this problem is?

The total of the above: Seven crashes, ten dead, multiple injured, dozens put at risk.  If this sounds bad, consider that on an average day, 110 people are killed by automobiles in the United States.

It’s time for the rest of us us to stand up and protect ourselves and our families from these irresponsible people.