Time for a "lurker" to come out of hiding and make a comment.
I think Jamie Sculerati's comment is the key in this issue. If NASCAR
drivers at Daytona are three abreast on the high banking, 99% of the
time there is no contact and consequently, no accident. When there is an
accident it is usually because of some mechanical failure. This low
accident rate is because these professional drivers know and trust each
other.
This is not the case on the highway. Rick Brown's second accident
occurred because of the "oblivious" other driver. All drivers need to
"look ahead". This is taught in driver education classes (at least in
Illinois) as "defensive driving". Unfortunately, most drivers (in
Illinois and other states, I imagine) don't practice this and _there is
no law that requires them (us) to do this. _!!! (Too difficult to enforce)
I also find Brian O'Neill's comments rather contradictory. He states,
"I disagree with you that 'nothing is being done to prevent
this.' The driver errors that cause most crashes involve motorists who are
either breaking traffic laws or not paying attention."
At the end of the same paragraph he states,
"The basic educational message for drivers should be: Obey all traffic laws and
pay attention. If all drivers did this we would have far fewer crashes."
How does this constitute "doing something" about it? All this statement seems
to say is: Let the accidents happen and we'll ticket those who we "think"
caused the accident. I think Matt's statement is true. Nothing is being done
about it! His conclusion may also be true: The insurance industry does not want
to lower the accident rate. They only want to increase insurance rates.
The insurance industry should put their money where their mouth is. They should
lobby for laws which require higher driving skill in order to obtain a driver's
license. There should also be tests at regular intervals where those skills are
reexamined. I would think that a good (defensive) driver probably wouldn't use
them and consequently they would become "rusty." That doesn't mean that they
shouldn't be "sharp." That driver may need them some day when they encounter an
"oblivious" driver. Failure to pass the "exam" would require them to attend...
let's say an autocross? ;{)
Remember driving is a privilege, not a right. An automobile is not an
appliance. Potentially, it's a weapon.
Lee Witkowski
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|