Basing driving records solely on at fault crashes

http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html

What do you think?

Arif Khokar wrote:
> http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
>
> What do you think?

I think he's a moron. Only a moron would apply such a simplistic,
adolescent line of reasoning... and then post it on the web. Let me
archive it on Usenet for him.

Focus on accidents -- not tickets
By Eric Peters
3/9/06

Here's an idea with some sense behind it -- which is why it will
probably go absolutely nowhe

Instead of hassling motorists over traffic infractions -- which to a
great extent are either trumped-up or have little, if anything, to do
with safe driving -- why not focus on the one clear indicator that a
person might be a bad driver.

Accidents.

It seems logical, after all. If you can't keep the sheetmetal straight,
you clearly have a problem controlling the car properly. Right? And
conversely, if you never so much as nick the paint, the evidence is
rather compelling that you've got a handle on things.

Why not base DMV "points" (and insurance rates) on a system that rates
drivers according to the number of at-fault accidents they have --
instead of henpecking them over driving 5 or 10 mph faster than a
number on a sign?

Because it makes sense?

That seems to be the only sane answer. Although the pecuniary angle
(money) probably accounts for this more than anything so irrational as
that. If traffic safety enforcement efforts were re-focused away from
the technical violator to identifying (and hopefully, removing) the
marginally competent (or downright incompetent) drivers, two
consequences would follow.

One, the sea of "revenue" derived from the issuance of trumped-up
traffic tickets based on things like driving faster than deliberately
under-posted speed limits would dry up faster than Gary Busey at an AAA
meeting. The multi-tiered edifice of make-work jobs tied to the flow of
cash -- lawyers, pencil-pushing bureaucrats -- would collapse and its
hirelings would be compelled to find productive work elsewhere. Police
time would no longer be wasted in the role of gun-toting Hall Monitor;
real crime awaits. Or at least, police could spend their time in the
more challenging (as well as dignified) work of looking for genuinely
unsafe drivers -- instead of radar-trapping honest citizens.

Two, insurance companies would become fair players. Instead of jacking
us up over a couple of non sequitur "speeding" tickets (and
notwithstanding a claims-free record) costs would be born by those who
incur them -- e.g., those who smash up their (and other people's) cars.

The true correlation is unsafe driving equals accidents -- not speeding
equals unsafe driving.

To grasp this requires unlearning the memorized cant that's been
force-fed into the
subconsciousness of the average motorist since his high school driver's
ed days. The doctrine that Original Sin lies in driving faster than the
posted limit -- not refusing to yield to faster moving traffic; not
tail-gating; not failing to single -- not any one of a baker's dozen of
errors and omissions behind the wheel that are far more likely to
result in body (and human) damage than merely exceeding the posted
speed limit.

Yet it is no less true for being at odds with the received conventional
wisdom -- a "wisdom," of course, that provides pretext and
justification for the bizarre, irrational and fundamentally unfair
system under which we currently live. A system that fosters and
encourages gross incompetence behind the wheel; which fixates on
technical violations instead of dealing with the ever-growing ranks of
inept drivers on the road; a system that works continuously to
dumb-down an already alarmingly dumbed-down pool of drivers with one
hand on their cell phones, the other clutching a snack from Taco Bell.
All the while, oblivious to traffic around them.

And "accidents" happen.

Only, they're not really accidents. Nine out of ten times, the
accident" is the clear result of driver error -- and thus, could have
been avoided. An accident is, by definition, both unanticipated as well
as unavoidable. Rear-ending the car ahead because you were tailgating
is not, properly speaking, an accident. You're simply a bad driver.

Why shouldn't you be penalized?

Putting it all together would not be difficult -- and it would be
immensely fair, because it would be based on completely objective,
irrefutable evidence that a given driver is a problem driver -- one in
need of remedial training, restrictions, whatever is necessary.

More than one at-fault accident every five years, for example. Who
could argue with that? (And any major at-fault accident, especially one
involving injury, would trigger an interview/examination by DMV
authorities, who would have discretion to require the offender
successfully complete a re-training course of some kind to insure the
rest of us against being this driver's next victim.)

Such an approach would almost surely make the roads a lot safer by
weeding out the young and reckless, the old and feeble -- and all the
bad drivers in between. It would foster a much higher average skill
level than exists at present and recast a driver's license as a
hard-won privilege to be respected -- instead of an entitlement.

Cops could be put to better use -- and good drivers would be free to go
about their business without constant far of being radar-trapped by
Ponch and Jon. Being pulled over would be a cause for rejoicing (on the
part of the rest of us) because it would mean one less dangerous fool
to worry about out there. Instead, we commiserate with the poor SOB --
knowing it could just as easily have been us (and likely will be at
some point down the road).

We'd be able to drive faster, with greater safety -- just like the
Germans, who not coincidentally have a system very much like the one
we've just been discussing. They worry a lot less about fast driving --
and much more about dangerous/incompetent driving (whether slow or
fast-moving). And their roads are safer than ours. We could enjoy the
same bennies, if only we paid attention and learned from their example.

Or would that make too much sense, after all.

Duh. What a ****ing idiot.
-----

- gpsman

> http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
>
> What do you think?
>

Well it sure would solve a lot of problems. My MIL has no speeding tickets,
ever. Same with my FIL. Between the two of them, they have 5 at-fault
accidents (not minor fender-benders) in the last decade. I don't think
either one of them should have a driver's license, even though neither one
of them EVER speeds. The ironic thing is, my driving record is PERFECT for
the last several decades (no accidents, no tickets), and my FIL (who has
totalled three cars in the past couple of years due to his own driving
errors) is scared to death to ride with me in my car. He'll tell me
straight to my face that *** I'm *** dangerous because I drive too fast. My
car is over ten years old now and still looks and runs like new. Meanwhile,
I can't even remember WHAT either one of my in-laws are driving, as they are
forced to change cars (due to at-fault accidents) so often it makes your
head spin. But I'm the dangerous one, because I'm the speeder. Right,
whatever.

Focusing on speeding as a means to gauge how good a particular driver is
seems to back-fire in the worst possible way. It is my experience that
people who are LEAST likely to speed are the most dangerous drivers on the
road. This is because they never learned to drive. Because they don't know
how to drive, they buy the crap that "speed kills". Thus, they never speed,
and tend to cause more accidents anyway. And all the while they will
lecture you if YOU speed. After all, you are a dangerous moron if you don't
buy into the "speed kills" crap. -Dave

gpsman wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think he's a moron. Only a moron would apply such a simplistic,
> adolescent line of reasoning

And yet, you rebut exactly zero lines of it.

Yeah, *he's* the moron. Sure thing, Champ.

[snip gpsman's total lack of rebuttal]

> Duh. What a ****ing idiot.

One of you is. My vote is for the one who anonymously calls names and
offers nothing in the way of cogent counter-argument.

E.P.

In article .com>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
>
> What do you think?

Before the torqueless wonder getting smashed I would have said that would
be fine. Afterwards, I find that assignment of fault can be as accurate
as "speed related".

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:

> Well it sure would solve a lot of problems. My MIL has no speeding tickets,
> ever. Same with my FIL. Between the two of them, they have 5 at-fault
> accidents (not minor fender-benders) in the last decade. I don't think
> either one of them should have a driver's license, even though neither one
> of them EVER speeds. The ironic thing is, my driving record is PERFECT for
> the last several decades (no accidents, no tickets), and my FIL (who has
> totalled three cars in the past couple of years due to his own driving
> errors) is scared to death to ride with me in my car. He'll tell me
> straight to my face that *** I'm *** dangerous because I drive too fast. My
> car is over ten years old now and still looks and runs like new. Meanwhile,
> I can't even remember WHAT either one of my in-laws are driving, as they are
> forced to change cars (due to at-fault accidents) so often it makes your
> head spin. But I'm the dangerous one, because I'm the speeder. Right,
> whatever.

He thinks you are going to crash because he's a "good driver" and crashes
frequently. Textbook american driving concept, no skills expecting to
crash because crashes aren't related to skill but are acts of god. So you
have to drive slow so the crashes don't hurt as much. Pure idiotcy is
what it is. It's about _NOT_ crashing.

Now if I can get people to stop crashing into my cars....

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > > http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I think he's a moron. Only a moron would apply such a simplistic,
> > adolescent line of reasoning
>
> And yet, you rebut exactly zero lines of it.
>
> Yeah, *he's* the moron. Sure thing, Champ.
>
> [snip gpsman's total lack of rebuttal]
>
> > Duh. What a ****ing idiot.
>
> One of you is. My vote is for the one who anonymously calls names and
> offers nothing in the way of cogent counter-argument.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but from my POV his
perspective needs no rebuttal it's so stupid. Here's two off the top
of my head, for the slow of thought:

According to his POV a driver may *cause* crashes due to speeding for a
lifetime... and as long as everyone avoids -him- he just goes on his
merry way.

"Honest citizens" rarely get "speed-trapped".

Personally, I drive around the limit and speeders often hinder my
travel, happens all the time. I've got the lights timed all over town
and they constantly fly around on the L and move in front of me and
line up at the light... forcing me to stop... when if we had all been
obeying the speed limit, none of us would have to stop. None of us
arrive any sooner and I actually arrive a little later because I
usually get caught at another light I wouldn't have had I been allowed
to proceed as planned and by law.

People who speed excessively place their desire over the law (and
everyone else in their proximity) and obviously evaluate, assess and
accept the risk of being cited. I think that person is demonstrating
an attitude of accepting more risk than necessary to begin with. It's
a small assumption to feel they might be willing to accept additional
risk as well and break other laws that contribute to safety. I say
cite 'em for whatever.

The differential of velocity excessive speediots create over drivers
operating at the limit is often cited as the actual less safe condition
by authorities as well as being the excuse other idiots use to justify
their own speeding.

Clearly, people who disobey speed laws are poor drivers. Why else
would they do it?
-----

- gpsman

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/accidents.html
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think he's a moron. Only a moron would apply such a simplistic,
> adolescent line of reasoning... and then post it on the web.


Are you SERIOUS?!? You're scaring the **** out of me, so I'm hoping you are
being sarcastic.

Everything Eric says is absolutely, 100% true. If records and insurance
rates were based only on at-fault crashes, it sure would solve a lot of
problems. That's not an "adolescent" line of reasoning. It is perfectly
logical. There are many people who would never speed who have several
at-fault accidents on their record. I suppose you think these drivers are
just incredibly unlucky? Meanwhile, there are many drivers who never OBEY
the speed limit, and have millions (yes, millions) of miles of driving under
their belts, with NO accidents at all. I suppose in your mind these drivers
are supremely lucky? Hint: Driving is a LEARNED skill. If most people in
the U.S. do not learn to drive, don't punish the people who DO learn to
drive by ticketing them frequently for driving -safely-, but illegally.

This is all logical . . . hardly an adolescent line of reasoning. -Dave

>
> Before the torqueless wonder getting smashed I would have said that would
> be fine. Afterwards, I find that assignment of fault can be as accurate
> as "speed related".

I missed something. What were the circumstances under which the torqueless
wonder got smashed? -Dave

> Clearly, people who disobey speed laws are poor drivers. Why else
> would they do it?
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

Oh boy, I hope you were wearing your flame-retardant underwear when you
coughed up that bit of phlegm.

Don't worry, I won't roast you into smoking embers, even though it's really
tempting.

I will simply state the obvious . . . people who don't know how to drive are
unsafe at ALL speeds, and ALSO firmly believe that speeding is an unsafe
activity. I haven't met anyone who actually knows how to drive AND believes
that speed kills. I would be shocked (to death, likely) if I ever did meet
that person.

Now I know that jaybird and his cronies will spout such garbage, but that's
perfectly understandable. Most cops simply do NOT know how to drive, in
spite of the extra "training" that they receive.

It is really sad that cops receive more driver training than the average
person in the U.S., and yet they STILL don't receive ADEQUATE driver
training. Is it any wonder then that there are so many people who think
that they are "better than average" drivers, and that a lot of them actually
BELIEVE that "speed kills"? Sad, but not surprising. -Dave