All Deaths are Tragic

In addition to world, national, regional, and local news reports, I try to read as many essays I can.  I enjoy the perspective on news from people of all ages, races, political bent, etc.  One of those columnists is Beverly Beckham of the Boston Globe.  She has been there as long as I can remember.  She is not on the op-ed page.  She writes once a week, on Sundays, and the column runs in the regional section.  I get the feeling at this stage in her career her editors permit her write about just anything and take any position she wishes.  Although she is rarely controversial.

There have been millions of words written over the past week or so relating to September 11.  Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.  But so far she is the only person I have found to take a position similar to the one she did in the paper Sunday.  And column ran on 9/11 — not a week or even a day later.

Ms. Beckham points out that while the 3,000 lives were taken within hours on that day in 2001, other deaths are tragic, too.  We should remember them, and remind ourselves that many of them are preventable.  In particular, 400,000 people have died in car crashes over the last ten years.

Frequent readers to this blob know that I care deeply about the issue of transportation safety, especially those injuries and fatalities that come as a result of a person making a poor decision.  Drunk driving, which as Ms. Beckham points out is responsible for roughly a third of all road deaths, is arguably the worst decision a person can make behind the wheel.

I will go a few steps further.  There are also deaths resulting from heart disease, cancer, guns, and suicide.  These deaths are tragic, too.  The terrorists attacks occurred on a single day, and the number “9/11″ will forever be associated with it.  And whenever that date arrives on the calendar, we remember and reflect.  Many of us mourn again.

Other deaths have no day because they occur every day.  Fatal car crashes appear in the paper, but they are so frequent they rarely make the front page, and they never get the columnists and taking heads going.  Heart attacks, children losing a battle with Leukemia, a chain smoker dying of emphysema, a person killed in a firearms accident — these deaths are even more frequent, and they almost never make the paper.

But they are tragic, too.  And we do not take a day to remember and reflect as a nation.

September 11 is a very important day in America’s calendar now.  It touched us all, and we should side time aside once a year.  But let’s remember — and talk about — other deaths, as well.

China Targets Bad Drivers

Can this driving simulator identify bad drivers?

Now we are getting somewhere, in regard to traffic safety.  A researcher in China has found a way to identify bad drivers.  Dr. Jin Huiqing has developed tests that accurately identify which drivers are more likely to cause crashes on the road.  This is a giant leap forward in preventing crashes and could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Let’s start with a definition of the problem.  There is a traffic fatality in China every 5 minutes.  (In the US there was a crash every 17 minutes in 2009.)  Car crashes are the leading cause of death among Chinese people age 15 to 44 (similar to the US).  As I have written in this space before, car crashes are by far the least reported, least discussed major public health problem in the world.  Many of these fatalities (and injuries, too) are preventable.

To date our approach to this problem has been to stuff cars with safety technology and make new laws.  These are both decent approaches, but neither has proven to be effective.  Only the recession and high gas prices have been able to put a major dent in fatalities (down 25% from 2005).  What we have ignored, for the most part, is the driver.

Chili Truck House — Update

Last weekend Eric Gremm chomped on chill and crashed his lumber truck into a house in Lowell.  The news story persists, though, because the truck can’t be removed or else the house will collapse.  So it’s still there, as we learn from the perfect headline in the Sun, Truck remains stuck in house.

This homeowner, who did not speak to the press (good for her), has lost the house.  The entire structure will have to be demolished.  I hope she is getting the same support from her neighbors as she would had if her home had burned to the ground.  At least she is able to carry out her belongings and store them while she waits for a new one to be built.

By the way, I wrote a letter to the Sun and so far, two of the comments are on Mr. Gremm’s side.  I suppose either of these people would feel differently if Mr. Gremm’s lumber truck was parked in their driveway.  Nevertheless, it demonstrates how high our tolerance is for the poor driving behavior of others.  I don’t think that’s this is because, on the surface, people aren’t scared by scenes like a truck in a house.  Rather, deep, deep down, everyone is afraid that if we do raise our standards of acceptable behavior behind the wheel, they will lose their own license.  Which leads us to find ways to rationalize things like drunk driving, texting while driving, speeding, and eating a bowl of chili in the cab of a lumber truck.

Chili + Numbskull Trucker = Truck in House

Yes, that is a lumber delivery truck in a woman's living room

Eric Gremm, a 59 year-old truck driver, was hungry.  So he stopped at Wendy’s for snack.  He went with the chili.  (Did he use the drive-thru?)  Then he climbed back in the cab of his giant lumber delivery truck and fired up the diesel.  Then, while driving through the streets of Lowell, he chowed down.

Trouble is, eating a bowl of chili is a two-handed operation — at least the way I eat it anyway.  So that left Mr. Gremm with no hands remaining to steer and operate the gear shift.  Or maybe he was steering with his knees and shifting with his — never mind.

And he must have been very hungry or in a hurry because he choked on it, suddenly blacked out, and, as you can see here, rammed through a house.

Not a great weekend for this homeowner.

Nobody on the property nor the public street was hurt.  Mr. Gremm had a small cut on the bridge of his nose.  He was well enough to joke with emergency personnel and the Sun reporter, saying, “I’m glad I didn’t knock two houses down. I sure wrecked that one.”

Ha ha!  Boy, I bet you’re glad there weren’t any children building a snowman in the front yard either!

Meanwhile, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says states that have banned texting have not seen a decrease in crashes.  IIHS thinks maybe drivers are ignoring the ban or switching to hands-free, which some science shows is just as dangerous as hands-on.

But IIHS is missing the fundamental problem here.  People who think it’s OK to send a text message while operating a speeding car will make other poor choices if texting is no longer available to them.  In other words, it’s the predisposition of some people to make poor decisions while driving that is the problem.  Sure you’ve gotten them to put the phone down today, but they will just do something else just as stupid tomorrow.

Like eat a bowl of chili while hauling lumber.

While I support any law banning stupid behavior that will result in death or injury to uninvolved, innocent people, we are not taking the right approach to the problem of bad driving.

To demonstrate, I ask you: what will happen to Eric “Dollar Menu” Gremm?  Well, his employee’s insurance company will pay for the damage to the house and maybe he’ll get some sort of minor moving violation.  He’ll pay a fine, but he’ll keep his Commercial Driver’s License.  If his company fires him, he’ll get a job driving a truck somewhere else.  A year from now you’ll see him munching on a Frosty as his lumbers by.

Which puts us back where we started.

A better way to address the problem of bad driving is not by issuing fines or even jail time.  Rather, we need to take away the one thing they value most: their car.  Under the tier system I have proposed, Mr. Gremm would lose his CDL (Tier D).  I might also knock his regular driver’s license down to Tier D also.  We should hold all drivers to a high standard, to be sure, but professional drivers, such as Mr. Gremm, should be held to the very highest standard.

Because no one anywhere should have to think about being injured by a vehicle while safety on one’s own property, much less their living room.

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.

Chew with Your Mouth Closed

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen — possibly the scariest story you will see in the news all year.  A report — in the “g” section of the Boston Globe — about people who eat while driving.

In it, there are a half dozen people who admit — on the record — to outright negligent behavior while driving.  That includes driving with one’s knees while eating ice cream with a spoon.  One lady crashed her car eating an enchilada — and she still does it.  All but one of the interviewees gave their full name and age.  (How do reporters find these people?  How many DWEs — diving while eating — declined to comment?)

I guess we’re supposed to be entertained by this story.  “Ha ha!  Eating a sloppy burger while soiling my clothes and possibly watching for pedestrians!  I do that too!”  But it’s yet another wake-up call that most people engage in this and similar kids of stupid driving behavior, and worse, think that that it’s perfectly OK, even quaint.

I don’t care how “busy” you are.  Find 5 minutes right before or after your trip to throw down your Taco Bell valu-meal.

Once we agree that this is a problem, how do we fix it?  I have advocated for a law banning anything with a screen (including navigation systems) from the front seat unless there is a passenger.  Now I realize that is not enough.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that 80% of all crashes are due to some form of distracted driving.  So in order to eliminate eating, my new law would have to read like this: the operator of a motor vehicle is prohibited from touching anything — while the car is in motion — except the steering wheel, gearshift, and permanently-mounted controls of the car (windows, climate control, radio, etc.).  You want to change the CD?  Wait until the next reed light.  This also means no more riding with a dog on your lap.  (Over the weekend I saw a fellow driving with two small dogs on his lap.)

Part 2 of my plan to make the roads safer and save us hundreds of millions of dollars a year is to take the worst 10% of the drivers off the road every year.  (I would start with every DWE quoted in the globe story.)  Not only would we have fewer crashes every year, saving us emergency response and health care money, the roads would be less crowded.  Less crowded roads mean we have to expand fewer highways and the pavement and bridges break down less quickly.

The carless would then need to find a bus, train, or bicycle.  Before you tell me how unfair or cruel this is, remember that millions of people do this every day by choice.  Besides, if you are among the 90% that retains you license, you get a lot less traffic to contend with.  Which makes you a winner.

In the meantime, put the sandwich down and put both hands on the steering wheel.

How to Keep Cars Away from Suspended Drivers

Good for the Boston Globe for reporting yesterday about New Hampshire’s law that already road-tests elderly drivers.  This is not news; our neighbors to the north have been doing it for years, and most believe the program works.  The Granite State tests people over the age of 75 every five years.  The paper reminds us that we are not the only state in the country (or New England, for that matter) and that new ideas aren’t so new or all that crazy.

While we have been distracted by the elderly driving issue, another story in the same edition is yet another wake-call from the real #1 issue with regard to bad behavior on the roads:  drunk drivers.  It’s the tale of Jason Wetteland, who, at the tender age of 39, has been charged with drunk driving more than ten times.  Records show he has six DUI convictions in the 13 years between 1988 and 2001.

Last Saturday night, Wetteland was stopped on 495 in Amesbury when a police officer spotted him swerving his Ford Explorer SUV.  He had a bottle of brandy in his lap.  He also had open containers of beer in the truck.

Why are these people are free to drive the same streets as you or me?

Wetteland’s license was under suspension, of course.  It was last active in 2003.  But why did the registry give this alcoholic his license back after six convictions in the first place?  (They did permanently revoke his license this week.  Good idea.)

Registry of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Ann Dufresne said there wasn’t much the RMV could to prevent this recent arrest because he was already under suspension.

I believe there is:

The 21st Century Drivers’ License

The Massachusetts Drivers License that you and I have in our wallet is old technology.  Sure, it has a fancy hologram and a funny bar code on the back with a few anti-fraud features thrown in.  Aside from that, it’s nothing more than a laminated piece of paper.

Elsewhere in your wallet, maybe you have a Charlie Card, issued by the MBTA.  This Charlie Card is a Smart Card, meaning it’s equipped with a memory chip, a tiny battery, and wireless communication capability.  (Or maybe you have a newer credit card or security ID for work that has Smart Card technology.)  A Smart Card can hold information, and this information can be read, written, and erased.  (The magnetic strip on your old credit card can only be read, but not written to.)

We may ridicule the T for many things, but the Smart Cards are a major leap forward in technology, and they make life much easier for riders.  (Hey, remember tokens?)

The driver’s license for the 21st century is also a Smart Card.  It would hold basic information already printed on your old license — age, DOB, address, height, eye color, restrictions, etc.

But your new license would also know whether or not it is valid.

When the RMV suspends a driver’s license, your Smart License would be tagged with this information.  How would this prevent someone from driving, you ask?  Your car will be smart, too.  Like the Charlie Card reader that lets you through the turnstile at Park Street, your car will be equipped to read your Smart License in your back pocket.  If your license is current, the car starts.

Some repeat DUI offenders already have a device installed that requires then to blow into for a blood alcohol content reading.  If your BAC is too high, the car won’t start.  A few luxury vehicles have anti-theft technology that does not permit ignition without the owner’s special key.  One or both of these devices could be altered to read the Smart License.

Let’s say a driver gets pulled over for speeding, and let’s also say we adopt my aggressive tier system for grading drivers.  This driver is a habitual speeder, and the rules say his license is to be suspended for 7 days on the spot.  The police officer tags the license as suspended.  The offender’s car doesn’t start up again, and the offender must call for a ride.  Or walk.  The offender would have to go to an RMV branch to reactivate his license.

Bad driving behavior would dry up in a matter of a few years under this system.  Accordingly, everyone’s insurance costs would plummet, not to mention fatality and injury rates.

So, elderly driving, drunk driving, cell phones and texting, road rage…. we rail against all of it.  But are we really serious?  If we are, we need to start with the license itself, which needs an upgrade.

Cogent Ideas About Unsafe Drivers

Outstanding essay in the Boston Globe today by Joseph F. Caughlin, founder of the MIT AgeLab.  He argues that age alone is no predictor of bad driving.  He believes we should find a way to test all drivers.

I have made a very similiar argument in this space.

He goes on to talk about improving our built environment so that it is more walkable.  Communities that are safe and convenient to walk mean that older people are not forced to drive or arrange rides to live their daily lives.  This is exactly one of the prime goals of Smart Growth.

Folks, if we do not solve this enderly driver issue, we are in big trouble.  A tidal wave of baby boomers are retiring, and their driving skills are rapidly declining.  If we don’t build neighborhoods in which they can walk (or bike or use transit) to most of their destinations, the roads are giong to be overflowing with people with poor skills within 10-20 years.

More arguments for the idea of testing all drivers are in the news almost every day now.  A University of Illinois study confirmed this week what we already know: speed kills.  The authors studied crash records before and after 55-mile-per-hour speed limits were first lifted in 1987, and then completely in 1995.  They found that higher speeds resulted in 12,500 additional deaths.

So if you are a habitual speeder, and you laugh and say you have a “lead foot,” it’s not funny.  You are a danger to yourself and others.  And if we tested all drivers — and systematically revoked privileges from operators with moving violations, as I have suggested — habitual speeders would be steadily removed from the driving population, thereby reducing fatalities.

In another study, Virginia Tech watched videos of 6 millions miles of driving and found that people sending a text message while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash.  Yes, 23 times!  Few folks would dispute this finding, yet outlawing texting is not enough and it would difficult to enforce anyway.  The way to solve “gadget distraction” is to forbid anything with a screen in the front seat of the car (unless used by a passenger).  This means cell phones, smart phones, iPhones, iPods, navigation systems, DVD players, etc.  And before you say “what about changing stations on the radio,” please.  While fiddling with the audio system is distracting, so is daydreaming.  I think we can confidently draw the line at screens.

And finally, while we are making laws banning very specific items from cars, let’s not leave out snakes.  Looks like we’ll need to, at least in Connecticut, where a bozo flipped his SUV and told the police that, while the truck was moving, two baby snakes escaped.  From him pants pocket.  (Your joke here.)

I know what you’re thinking.  “Get these *&%&^(*^ snakes out of this *&%&$(*^ car!”  Know what I’m thinking?  Get these idiotic drivers off my roads.   Now.