Is it too late to stop Distracted Driving?

A couple weeks ago, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood convened a Distracted Driving Summit in Washington, D.C.

Among the speakers was Reggie Shaw, 22. On September 22, 2006, Shaw was driving-and-texting in Utah when his vehicle drifted across the center line of the highway, and the ensuing accident killed two other roadway users.

Well-publicized studies by University of Utah scientists indicate that cell-phone talking while driving (not texting!) is statistically more dangerous than driving with >.08% blood-alcohol content, the legal limit in most places. The NTSB estimates that last year, nearly 6000 people died, and more than 500,000 were injured, in accidents involving distracted or inattentive drivers.

Yet, the prevailing attitude seems to be, "I know it's wrong, but I'm going to take my chances anyway." Or, "Sure - but I'm a superior driver, so it's okay for me."

So - what came out of the Summit?

Federal employees have been ordered not to text-while-driving. And everyone else is being "encouraged" not to drive distracted.

LaHood: "Every time you take your eyes off the road or talk on the phone while you're driving -- even just for a few seconds -- you put your life in danger."

Your life?!!? If it were just the life of the person making the stupid choice, I'd say let nature take its course! Choices have consequences. The problem is, guys like Reggie Shaw end up killing innocents who were doing everything right.

Nayha Dixit's sister was killed in a distracted-driving auto accident. She says, "The people in the cars next to us. It's someone's sister, someone's mother. Is checking that text message more important than someone's life?"

There oughtta be a law!

Do we need a law, specifically banning or limiting cell-phoning or texting?

Many states seem to think so, and have passed such laws.

(It's unfortunate that some people have such poor judgment, that they will do things that are dangerous or even life-threatening, unless it's illegal.)

Opponents say, "How about Inattentive Driving? Wouldn't that cover it?"

As I see it, the problem with a law as vague as "inattentive driving," is that its enforcement almost always follows an accident. The property damage is already done, the lives already left in shambles. How do you otherwise demonstrate that the driver was indeed driving inattentively?

Of course, a problem with specific laws is... unless accompanied by vigorous and high-profile enforcement, they will be ignored. California has a cell-phone law. It says you need to use a hands-free device. (A law with dubious value, IMO.) Yet here is California's First Lady, Maria Shriver, yappin' it up, much to the embarrassment of her Terminator husband.

A better comment by LaHood: "I strongly encourage the public to take personal responsibility for their behavior and show a healthy respect for the rules of the road." (Emphasis added.)

May it be so!

Other reading:
- Fox News article: LaHood Pledges to Crack Down on Distracted Driving, Warns of Fatal Consequences
- DOT Press Release: U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces Administration Wide Effort to Combat Distracted Driving
- Rodale Press article: Distracted Driving Addressed by Politicians, Scientists, and Advocates

(Hat tip to correspondent Bob T who kept rattlin' my cage about the Distracted Driving Summit. It is indeed one of the biggest obstacles to safe cycling.)

Distracted Driving Summit '10

On September 21, a National Distracted Driving Summit was held in Washington, DC, chaired by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Is distracted driving a problem?

According to the NHTSA, almost 20% of all crashes involve some type of distraction. Nearly 6000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver (2008), and more than half a million were injured.

The federal Distracted Driving Website categorizes distracted driving as one of more of:
Visual - taking your eyes off the road
Manual - taking your hands off the wheel
Cognitive - talking your mind off what you are doing

Any one of the three can have fatal consequences. And unfortunately and unfairly, it's not always the distracted driver who ends up with the consequences. Far too often, victims of distracted drivers were doing everything right... they were just in the wrong place and time, when a distracted driver victimized them.

The parents of Kassy Kerfoot, who live in Meridian, testified at the Summit.

Their daughter was 18 when she died. She was texting while driving, and swerved into the oncoming lanes, colliding with 2 other vehicles. Her parents are convinced that a law banning texting-while-driving would result in lives saved. And perhaps it would. But why does the government have to compel people to exercise some basic common sense?

My opinion:
- I'm in favor of laws banning texting-while-driving, and phoning-while-driving, for that matter. It would be wonderful if people could make those choices on their own, but apparently some folks assume that anything not illegal must be safe. (Sigh...)
- I wish more drivers would be cited for Inattentive Driving. Currently it seems to only be enforced in an accident situation, and when the error is egregious.
- As tragic as Kassy's accident was... how much more tragic it would've been, if she'd killed an innocent bystander! (And it's safe to assume that many of those 6000 fatalities and half-a-million injuries occured through no fault of the victims.)

Personally, I'm much more worried about getting plowed into by a distracted driver than by a drunk driver. (Although the results could be the same in either case.)

(Previous commentary - 2009 Distracted Driving Summit - HERE.)

Gun Violence - Vehicle Violence

I don't know how you feel about guns... and I realize it's a very divisive issue.

I know how I feel about guns. I grew up in a gun-totin' household and was enjoying plinking with .22s while my age was still in the single digits. My dad wasn't much of a hunter, but he loved guns. He became a life member of the NRA. I'm not much of a hunter, but I love guns... I became a life member of the NRA.  (The proximity of guns also led to familiarity with guns... at an early age I was aware of their great potential for destruction, and the importance of handling them with respect and caution.)

I have no problem with stable-minded, law-abiding citizens owning and using guns. (I would support enhanced background checks, and I would welcome some way for private citizens to make sure they're selling a gun to a good guy; right now it's essentially impossible to do so, unless the buyer is already well-known to you.)

Much is made of the thousands of gun-related deaths. And indeed, it's a horrible tragedy when a criminal and/or deranged individual victimizes innocents, using a gun. (I cried for the first time in several years, the night after that punk shot a bunch of first-graders in Newtown. That hit very close to home for me, since I have a beloved granchild living under my roof. Mackie is that same age.)

But if we're interested in honesty and objectivity... maybe when we're looking at gun violence, we should consider separately:
- Suicide by gun
- Gun violence associated with other criminal activity
- Accidental shootings

Any untimely death of a human being is tragic... but in my mind, it's particularly tragic when the decedent is an innocent victim. (And that can't be said of adults who deliberately commit suicide, or "gang bangers" who succumb to violence wrought by their turf or drug wars.)

The vast majority of guns that are owned and secured by law-abiding citizens are never used in a crime. And in fact, it could be argued that they deter crime - ask any criminal if he would rather victimize somebody who's armed, or unarmed.

It would be interesting to objectively compare the number of innocent bystanders who fall victim to stranger gun violence, with innocent bystanders who fall victim to stranger inattentiveness behind the wheel.

Here is an interesting website about distracted driving.

According to their numbers, 416,000 people are injured annually in crashes involving distracted drivers. And 3092 people were killed in crashes involving distracted driving in 2010.

Obviously many of those distracted drivers become victims themselves... but far too many of the victims are innocents, who just had the misfortune of being in the path of destruction.

Would you somehow feel better if your child was killed by somebody who's texting-while-driving, instead of a crazy/criminal with a gun? Perhaps we've become more comfortable than we should be, surrounded by irresponsible motorists.

(This is an ongoing pet peeve of mine. Probably because I regularly see people endangering others with their distracted driving! Someday if I'm killed or maimed by a distracted driver, this will be evidence that I was concerned about the problem, but felt powerless to stem the tide.)

Motorist-Hypocrites

The AAA is reporting that drivers text and yap on their phones, even though they know it's dangerous.

According to the AAA Traffic Safety Culture Index, 95% of drivers believe that clickey-clickin' on those tiny keyboards while driving is dangerous, but 35% of 'em do it anyway. 88% of drivers believe that talking on a cellphone while driving is dangerous, and 67% of 'em do it.

From the article: "Texting and cell phone use are not the only distractions in the car, but they are the major preventable ones that have drawn the attention of researchers, safety advocates, lawmakers and the general public. The threat is real, researchers say, because studies of cell phone records of crash-involved drivers suggest that using a cell phone while driving is associated with roughly a quadrupling of crash risk."

The NHTSA estimates that 16% of fatal crashes involve distracted driving. In Idaho, 60 people died in 2009 in distracted-driving accidents, yet Idaho is one of 16 states that don't have a texting- or phoning-while-driving law, despite public opinion favoring such laws. AAA-Idaho spokesman Dave Carlson: "When we reached out to Idahoans last February to hear about their experiences with drivers who text and use cell phones, we were overwhelmed by the responses supporting specific bans on cell phone use."

Frankly, I remain amazed that the auto insurance industry doesn't have graduated rates, or a discount for motorists who don't engage in such dangerous driving practices.

Study - Distracted Driving

KidSafe USA, whose mission is "to empower children and parents with personal safety skills to stay safe and think safe," just published a report about "Distracted Drivers in School Zones."

From the KSUSA report: "... research demonstrates that the brain’s ability to perform two or more tasks at the same time generally results in a decreased performance of each task depending on the complexity of the task and how the brain allocates priorities to each task. During every moment of the "Driving Task," vehicle operators are constantly being challenged by a changing environment and road conditions; by the actions of other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and by the actions and behavior of passengers and objects in the car. Many drivers also operate their vehicles under less than ideal conditions such as being tired or being physically/emotionally stressed. The sum effect of all these factors makes driving an extremely complex task even under the best of conditions."

Disturbing details:

"... they documented an almost six times greater risk when dialing a phone and 23 times greater risk when texting. Similarly, other studies show that automobile drivers using a phone are four times more likely to crash than drivers not using a phone. This is comparable to drivers with blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal definition for drunken driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2003, 240,000 car crashes and 955 deaths occurred due to cell phone use. This may be an underestimation of the true number..."

It goes on to report that distractions aren't caused just by cell-phone use. Other common distractions:
- active conversations with passengers
- preparing, eating, and spilling food
- reaching or leaning
- smoking
- adjusting music device controls
- grooming

KidSafe USA uses the report to emphasize how important it is for drivers to not be distracted while in school zones. I can't help but wonder... why is it okay to drive distracted anywhere else?

I continue to be totally convinced that NO motorist will consciously and deliberately involve himself in an accident. And that the vast majority of vehicle accidents are caused by drivers who are either impaired or distracted.

The KidSafe study can be seen HERE (15 page, 1+ mb PDF document.)

Stupid phones!

The motto of many, many "smart phone" owner/operators could be, "My phone is smart, so I don't have to be!"

30 years ago, mobile phones were a very rare novelty. The cell phones of the day were the size of a brick, were useful in very limited areas, and cost $2000. They did one thing rather poorly - make and receive telephone calls. And... most people did just fine without a mobile phone.

In 2016, it's rare to see anybody over 12 or so who doesn't have a "smart phone." And a meaningful percentage of those people seem to be totally focused on that tiny screen, all the live long day!

I challenge you to do your own informal inventory. Look at the people where you are... walking, standing, driving, bicycling, skateboarding, sitting... whatever. It's really quite startling how many will have one elbow cocked at 90 degrees to look at that phone... or in some cases, cradling it lovingly in two hands, like a precious infant or an adorable kitty. (As a mostly-outsider looking on, I can't help but wonder... WHAT could possibly be so interesting on that four-inch screen, that's far more enthralling than the real life all around them?!?)

Has the IQ of our society gone up, as "smart phones" have become ubiquitous? There's precious little evidence of that... and there are disturbing signs that the opposite might be true, in this observer's viewpoint.

FIRST: You don't need to know anything, if you can look everything up on your "smart phone."

SECOND: Observe some of the stuff that "smart phone" operators do, on account of their staring at their phones! They walk into manholes and fountains, and step off curbs. Worse... they get behind the wheel of their car, and maim/kill themselves and innocent bystanders. 30 years ago, I'm confident that collisions involving distracted driving were less common than they are today. (There have always been distractions... but the "smart phone" has taken distracted driving to a whole new disturbing level, and apparently our society deems the collateral damage acceptable.)

A couple weekends ago, I was bicycling through a nearby city park. It seemed there were considerably more smart-phone zombies than usual, standing or lurching about, staring at their phones. Turns out it was almost certainly related to the latest smart-phone craze - Pokemon Go. Oh, joy! Proponents are defending it: "Well, at least it gets the kids out of the house and doing something." Seriously? Is that where we are, as an enlighened society? We need some sort of smart-phone game to get people outside (where they stare at their phones some more)? (If you're interested, HERE is a video taken on a Baltimore cop body-cam. A driver sideswipes a cop car, and his declared reason is because he was playing Pokemon on his "smart phone.") Beam me up, Scotty!

[NOTE: The main reason I have strong feelings about "smart phones" is the tendency of their users to do really REALLY stupid stuff that endangers other people. I witness it up close and personal, almost every day. If they were only putting themselves at risk with their entertainment/lifestyle choices, I'd say let nature take its course! The smart will survive... the dumb, not so much. But "smart phone" users kill and damage both smart and not-so-smart indiscriminately. I sincerely hope we eventually attach some negative stigma to driving around killing people while phone-distracted... that would be a step in the right direction.]

Carnage

The civilized world is outraged and horrified when something like the "Boston Marathon bombing" takes place. Hearing of three innocent people killed and hundreds injured takes us out of our Comfort Zone. Terrorism is a horrible thing, because it makes peaceful people uncomfortable and brings war-zone strife into neighborhoods.

(As a matter of perspective and reality, such incidents are much more common in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, even Israel and India. How blessed we are if we live where such incidents are rare occurrances. But the world would be a better place without any such horror.)

Also as a matter of perspective and reality, consider:

Yesterday across the Fruited Plain, probably 15 people were killed, and 1227 people injured in motor vehicle crashes that involved distracted driving. It's likely more people were killed and maimed yesterday by cell phone yakkers, than were killed and maimed in Boston by terrorists with bombs. And far more by people who were distracted in other ways, while driving.

Just as many people will be killed and injured today.  And tomorrow.  And the day after that, and the day after that, etc. ...

(That's based on 2009 statistics. In that year, 5474 people were killed and an estimated 448,000 people were injured in distracted-driving accidents. 995 of those fatalities - 2.7 per day - involved reportss of a cell phone as a distraction. Those NHTSA statistics can be found HERE (PDF file).)

Where's the outrage?!?

Yeah - I admittedly obsess about distracted drivers.  It's probably because I see so many of them every day.  Cyclists are extremely vulnerable - the only way for us to avoid being injured or killed is to avoid accidents, and distracted drivers are out there causing accidents!

Distracted Driver Danger

Yet more disturbing news about the habits of motorists.

State Farm Insurance did a survey of 912 licensed drivers, and got these responses:
- 74% make or receive phone calls at least once weekly while driving
- 35% send or receive text messages weekly while driving
- 19% surf the web (!!) weekly while driving

So... is that a problem?

In 2009, distracted driving accidents resulted in 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries.

Yeah, I'd say it's a problem.

Politically, I'm libertarian/conservative, and resent government meddling in people's lives. HOWEVER... since the government provides roads, and since people apparently won't voluntarily refrain from endangering other citizens while using those roads, I think it's up to the government to mandate some responsible behavior. If those 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries were only the folks who engaged in grossly irresponsible behavior, then I'd be fully in favor of letting people surf/text/yack away, and deal with the consequences.

(People who have read the BikeNazi for awhile probably think I harp on this too much. May be. But my biggest concern, when I take to the streets on my bicycle, is that I will become a statistic - a victim of some clown who's not paying attention to his/her driving, and plows into me.)

More info about the State Farm survey HERE. (Previous Commentary)

Texting while driving revisited

IMO, one of the most significant threats to cyclist safety is the motorist who is distracted from that critical task, by whatever it may be. And some of the most common distractions are posed by electronic handheld devices, most often cell phones. More recently and alarmingly, drivers are composing text messages on their tiny keyboards. (Anybody who would do that while driving doesn't have enough common sense or concern for the safety of his fellow citizens, to be using public roadways!)

Many jurisdictions - including both Twin Falls and Meridian here in Idaho - have passed specific laws prohibiting texting-while-driving. Critics claim that the current inattentive driving laws are adequate... and I'd agree, if they were vigorously enforced. But "inattentive driving" is a matter of judgment, and very hard to prove unless an accident is involved. Probably a third of the motorists I see these days could be accused of inattentive driving, but many don't get into accidents... often because of the avoidance maneuvers by more diligent citizens.

State senator John McGee tried to get a statewide ban on the practice enacted last year, and pledges to do so again this year. According to McGee, "Texting while driving is 30 times more dangerous than even drinking while driving."

Another supporter of such legislation is Liz Catherman. Her daughter Kassandra, 18, was killed while texting in a tragic accident, when she drifted into oncoming traffic.

I had a huge change of heart about Liz Catherman and her motives while watching a TV story a couple days back. Her daughter was at fault in the fatal accident. I've always felt that there were other overlooked victims - those who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I was surprised by Ms. Catherman's compassion for those other victims. In the story, she explains, "On Dec 29th, 2009...my daughter made a couple of poor decisions...she decided to text and drive and not wear her seatbelt. When you're on that public road you're involving the public and the public has a right to be safe on the roads."

My hat is off to Ms. Catherman. I wish other roadway users realized, like she does due to her personal tragedy, that texting-while-driving is a POOR decision!

Previous commentary HERE.

Driving while fingernail-painting

On Sunday afternoon, May 2, 2009, Anita Zaffke, 56, was on her motorcycle waiting for the light to turn green. From all indications, she was extremely conscientious about safely operating her bike, including wearing hi-viz clothing.

She never knew what hit her, most likely.

It was an automobile being driven by Lora L. Hunt. Although I use the term "driven" loosely. The car never even slowed down. After the accident, Ms. Hunt told attending officers that she had been painting her fingernails at the time of the accident. Nail polish was on the airbag, and all over the inside of the car.

Anita Zaffke's son Greg paints his fingernails black in memory of his mom. He has also formed the Black Nail Brigade, the "Foundation Against Distracted Driving."

Hunt was convicted of criminally reckless homicide on May 6, 2010.

I find this troubling...

Her defense attorney says that if she'd been eating a sandwich or dialing a cell phone instead of polishing her nails, she wouldn't have been convicted.

And the prosecutor said, "It is not the same as biting a sandwich - it's a voluntary disablement. She might as well have been in the back seat making a sandwich."

To me, his comment implies that if you kill somebody with your car while eating a sandwich, it's somehow forgivable.

I can hear it now! "Citizens of the jury! My client didn't intend to kill anybody when she was texting behind the wheel... it was just a tragic accident."

People! That car is a missile - a lethal weapon! Anything you do while driving it, that distracts you from safely operating that vehicle, is your responsibility! And the driver should be held accountable! I don't care if it's eating, or putting on makeup, or texting or phoning, or adjusting your defrost, or being distracted by kids in the back seat. There is no excuse for your car being uncontrolled while you are distracted. If you can't deal with that, get out and walk!

As the victim's son says, "There is no legal difference between unintentional recklessness and intentional recklessness to establish the charge of Reckless Homicide ... No one is saying that Lora Hunt intended to kill Anita Zaffke, nor that she intended to kill anyone, nor even that she intended to be reckless. But no one can deny that Lora Hunt was recklessly oblivious of another human being."

Distracted driver, Uber driver, self-driving car ... pick your poison!

Mary Ward and Elaine Herzberg share something in common.

In 1869, Mary was a passenger in an experimental steam car, in Parsonstown, Ireland.  As the car rounded a corner, poor Mary became the first motor vehicle fatality when she fell out and the vehicle's wheels rolled over her.

On March 18, 2018, Elaine was pushing her bicycle across a 4-lane highway in Tempe, AZ, in the dark, when she became the first self-driving motor vehicle fatality. Story HERE.

There's disturbing video footage.  As the futuristic vehicle zips along the road, suddenly poor Elaine is lit up by the headlights of the guilty vehicle.  (Is the vehicle guilty, since it was driving itself?)  It's obviously an almost-direct hit, at highway speed... Elaine never had a chance.

There's also video of the "Safety Driver" in the vehicle.  Looks like she was probably fiddlin' with her "smart phone," and looked up just in time to see Elaine go flying.  So - her behavior was essentially identical to regular drivers who are distracted by their "smart phones," until the moment of impact.

In all fairness, it's doubtful that a fully-attentive driver would've seen this particular victim in time to prevent the collision.  She's dressed in dark clothes, and no apparent lights, reflectors, etc.  She also seems to be oblivious to the vehicle that's quickly converging on her in a traffic lane.  (What the?!!)  She's at least partially responsible for her own demise.  But it hardly fills one with confidence in all the futuristic technology (laser, lidar, radar) that's spoze to make self-driving vehicles much safer.  FAIL!

The car was an Uber vehicle.  (Imagine being the passenger on the ill-fated trip!!)

Details about Uber's minimum driver standards hardly fill one with confidence.  From the story:
- no violent crime convictions
- no felony convictions in the past 7 years
- no more than three non-fatal crashes (they say "accidents," but they are rarely accidents) or moving violations in 3 years

Would you feel better if you were run over by a self-driving vehicle, rather than an old-fashioned distracted-driver (or incompetent or impaired) vehicle?

Innocent victims

Ten days or so ago, the nation recoiled in horror.  A monster/madman rained terror down on country music fans in Las Vegas, murdering 58 innocent people and injuring hundreds in a matter of minutes.  Before the victims had even been accounted for, there were impassioned demands for action!

We need new laws!  Implements of death and destruction - in this case guns - MUST be kept away from criminals and incompetents, and maybe everybody!  What kind of irresponsible people could possibly be against further action to prevent such incidents?!!

Mostly I think we feel helpless.  As of this writing, the motive of the killer is still a mystery.  And when there's not a discernible motive or some sort of attention-getting activity prior to the mayhem... how do you prevent it?  Are we all going to go through metal detectors and intense scrutiny now, when we check into a hotel?  Is that a price we're willing to pay, to mitigate the one-in-ten-million madman?

But - at the same time - every week, we seem mostly willing to look the other way when more people are victimized by distracted drivers.

In 2015, according to the NHTSA, 3477 people were killed in fatal distracted-driving mishaps.  That's about 67 per week - almost 10 every day.  Furthermore, it's estimated that 391,000 people were injured by distracted drivers (about 7500 per week - more than 1000 per day).

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!!?

Many of the perps were distracted by their so-called "smart phones."  I believe you see more people driving nowadays with phone in hand, than those who have both hands on the wheel.  Remember?  The way you learned in driver-ed?

But apparently that's not enough.  The auto industry is attracting buyers with shiny-bright touch-sensitive console-mounted "infotainment systems" in new cars!  You've seen 'em in the commercials - they give you directions... tell you which track is playing on the 18 650-watt speaker system... control the climate... maybe even let you watch a movie or hilarious YouTube cat videos.

What could go wrong?

Apparently, a lot.  University of Utah researchers studied the infotainment in 2017 automobiles, and concluded that "most... distract drivers too long to be safely operated while the vehicles are in motion."  Programming your navigation takes about 40 seconds to complete, for example.  Yet, "the risk of a crash doubles when a driver takes his or her eyes off the road for two seconds."  Story HERE.

Far, far more innocents are killed by distracted drivers, than by crazed killers with bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic assault rifles.  Both are tragic, and are blights on our society... but honestly, which is the more serious and pervasive problem?

More adults (than teens) text while driving

Do you wonder why kids think it's OK to yap on the phone, or text, while driving?

Because they see the grownups doing it.

A new study indicates that while 98% of adults know that texting or emailing while driving is unsafe, 49% of them do it anyway. (This compares with the 43% of teens who admit to texting while driving.)

Apparently "awareness" and laws (it's illegal in 39 states and D.C.) aren't incentive enough. I hope each one of the miscreants doesn't have to kill somebody or damage somebody's property to get the message.

"Researchers at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that sending or receiving a text takes a driver's eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds — about as long as it takes to drive the length of a football field at 55 mph. The researchers found that texting creates a crash risk 23 times worse than driving while not distracted."

(I've said it before and I'll say it forever! I'm conservative, and all in favor of people making their own choices, and then being responsible for those choices. If people only endangered themselves by clicky-clicking, yapping on the phone, driving drunk, running red lights, etc., I'd say let each person decide! But the harsh reality is... those irresponsible yahoos are out there killing innocent bystanders... and I don't want me or one of my loved ones to end up being one of those bystanders!)

Driving with reckless abandon!

Yesterday in Magna, Utah (in suburbia out of Salt Lake City), a high school girl was celebrating her 17th birthday.

Apparently her friends painted polka-dots on the windshield of her pickup truck, and stuffed it with balloons as it sat in the high school parking lot.

Over the noon hour, she and a male friend were driving when she inexplicably swerved into the oncoming lane.

Tragically, electrical engineer / avid cyclist Karen Johnson was cycling with a friend in that oncoming lane. Seeing a pickup headed directly toward them, her friend swerved right off the road; Karen swerved left in an evasive maneuver. At the last second, Birthday Girl swerved right to get back into her lane and smacked Karen; she was dead before she got to the hospital.

It was unclear whether distractions, or limited visibility, played a role in the accident.

Deseret News story HERE.

What a tragedy!

The comments following the story are somewhat disturbing to me.

Sarah B says, "How tragic. This young lady's birthday will foreveer be marred by this."

Awwwww! That's so sad! Her birthday was spoiled!

How will Karen Johnson's family be "celebrating" October 19, from this year forward?

(I s'pose that other distracted drivers identify more with a distracted driver, if they've not ridden a bicycle recently.)

Many fingers of blame are pointed at the pranksters who painted the windshield.

WRONG!!!

It was Birthday Girl who assessed the situation and got behind the wheel, making the choice to pilot that 4000-pound lethal missile.

Several people call for more restrictions on teenage drivers.

I would agree, if I didn't see drivers of all ages making some really stupid and dangerous choices while driving. Teenagers may be less experienced and therefore less predictable in their reaction... but poor judgment comes in all ages.

"utopia381" (nice!) chastises commenters who were apparently a little too tough on Birthday Girl: "Such harsh words for people who have no idea what they are talking about. As tragic as the circumstances are we still don't know the whole story."

What details will make the story less tragic, oh wise one?

PEOPLE! YOU PEOPLE WHO DRIVE CARS! You have voluntarily undertaken some serious responsibility! It is YOUR responsibility - not anybody else's - to make sure that vehicle you are driving is operated in a safe manner! You could kill somebody with your car! If you are doing something stupid and kill yourself, that would be a tragedy, but those you leave behind could rationalize, "It's tragic, but I s'pose he had it coming." You do NOT have the right to be doing something stupid and kill somebody else!!! PLEASE get serious about your driving! If you can't do that, just hang up the keys for the rest of us.

Multitasking Drivers

If you pay attention to current events, you may have noticed that on January 1, it became illegal in Washington state to compose text messages on your cellphone/blackberry thing while driving.

If you get caught, it'll cost you $124. If it leads to an accident, the penalty goes up to a whopping $175.

Does this seem scary to any of my road-going bike-rider friends? It sure scares me!
- It suggests that in the other 49 states, it's okay (legal, at least) to compose text messages on your matchbook-size keyboard as you're driving along.
- More significantly, it suggests that there are people out there, operating 3500-pound steel missiles, whose judgment is so poor that they'll do something that's mind-bogglingly stupid and irresponsible, unless there's a law against it.

We already share roads with people who are BARELY capable of driving at all. (I see them all the time! There's no IQ test to get a drivers' license, and no way to test judgment, far as I know. Except after somebody causes an accident driving-while-texting, I guess you can say, "Golly! That guy was really exercising bad judgment!")

My biggest fear, as a road-going bicyclist, is the fear that somebody will plow into me while either impaired or distracted. I guess I can take comfort in knowing that if it happened in Washington, the perp would get fined $175 if it were his texting that caused the distraction.

Reached THE MAX? That would be nice!!

Last month, a fine young boy named Max Wyatt was riding his bike with his dad (in my neighborhood!) when he was struck down in a collision with a woman driving a minivan.  Details are still sketchy and the investigation ongoing, but based on all accounts, Max and his dad were doing everything right.  Poor Max was dragged down the street a ways, and bystanders rescued him from underneath the car.  He was flown to a children's hospital in Salt Lake City, and (thank goodness!) seems to be on the mend - albeit very slowly.  We all hope and pray that he has a complete recovery.

Friends of the Wyatt family have started a campaign to raise funds for his care... and Jimmy Hallyburton, founder of the Boise Bicycle Project, is also doing what he can (as always) to raise awareness about bicycle safety.  (He's also good friends with the Wyatt family, raising his stake in this particular drama.)

Jimmy is encouraging people to make a bracelet out of a bike spoke as an awareness symbol.  But more than that... he's put together a public safety meeting that will hopefully involve concerned citizens as well as local policymakers, scheduled for Wednesday 10/6 at 6pm, in the Rose Room.  (I hope that's correct info!  I'm gathering this off Jimmy's Facebook postings, and I'm not a Facebook power user!!)

Schedule of events:
6pm - Bracelet Making
6:30pm - Meeting Begins, Max and The Max campaign
6:45pm - Information and opportunities for involvement in the Treasure Valley’s bicycle and pedestrian organizations
7:15pm- New technologies, methods, and ideas for change
7:30pm- Public comment, ideas, input and concerns
7:55pm- Next Steps in the Max Campaign
8pm- Meeting Conclusion

(Jimmy also has an audience with Governor Otter on October 14.  I've gotta hand it to the guy - he's totally dedicated to making a difference!)

What more can be done, to make our streets safer for cyclists?  (Other than separating bike traffic from motor traffic, and that will NEVER happen comprehensively.)

I happen to know the lady who was driving the minivan.  She's devastated.  She has kids of her own, including a little girl about Max's age, and they ride bikes.  She's a very conscientious person.  She doesn't even own an electronic handheld gizmo, so she wasn't distracted by her texting or yappin' on the phone (like so many people these days).  I'm sure she'd gladly trade places with Max in the hospital room, if she could.  She says she can't remember much of anything leading up to the tragic moment... I s'pose shock will do that to ya.  I'm NOT excusing her; she was almost surely responsible for what happened.  But it makes me realize that one or two seconds of inattentiveness while driving can affect lives in a profound way.  How do we get motorists to truly appreciate how critical it is, that they focus on their driving, in our A-D-D day and age?!!!

Also... how can we make cyclists appreciate how critical it is for them to be legal, visible, aware, and "defensive"?  Max and his dad were probably doing everything right, but just the same, they flew under the driver's "radar."  It's horrible!  I see Bozos on Bike every day, who are riding illegally and downright dangerously, apparently trusting good luck and the attentiveness/skill of the Motoring Public.  (NOT a good place to lay your life on the line, seems to me.)

I'm not sure there is an answer, other than vigorous enforcement of laws, and a dedicated campaign of education.  I'm vitally interested in bicycle safety, and look forward to what emerges from the meeting.

Plan 10 from Outer Space

While we're on the subject of movies...

Have you seen the movie "Plan 9 from Outer Space," written and directed by the legendary Ed Wood? It's on every movie critic's list of the worst movies ever made; I have it in my collection. (Part of the Ed Wood box set, which includes 3 or 4 other movies that are almost as bad.)

I've watched it a half-dozen times over the years, but still can't really describe the plot. It's science fiction... something about space aliens revitalizing the dead, and turning them into zombies. But you don't want to spend all your time trying to figure out the subtle nuances of the plot... because there are all the awesome props, special effects, etc. (Cardboard tombstones in a cemetery... supposedly at night, but you can see the cars whizzing by just behind the hedge... paper-plate flying saucers dangling by strings, etc.) It was the last movie Bela Lugosi was in; he died during the filming, so they hired a "double" who always holds his cape across his face... surely nobody will notice it's a different guy! It's so bad it's hilarious.

One of the many holes in the plot... the movie never properly explains how the space aliens communicate with the zombies.

I think I've figured it out!

When Wood made the movie in 1959, even a visionary such as himself couldn't foresee the day when smart-phone zombies would be clumsily lurching about, staring at the screens of their phones... perhaps waiting for instructions from their space-alien overlords! I propose a remake of "Plan 9," and all the zombies are clutching their "smart-phones."

(Why do they call 'em smart-phones, anyway? It's not because their users seem so smart, when they are smart-phoning!)

There's an article on the Deseret News website today, "What to do about protecting distracted pedestrians." It cites several examples of pedestrians who sustained serious injuries after walking over cliffs, into holes, etc., while staring at their phones. Emergency room visits by "distracted pedestrians" have quadrupled. "State and local officials are struggling to figure out how to respond, and in some cases asking how far government should go in trying to protect people from themselves."

Officials in the Salt Lake City area are concerned, because several people have recently walked right into the path of oncoming trains, while paying attention elsewhere.

Um... EXCUSE ME.

Why is it the government's job to protect people from themselves?

Distracted motorists routinely kill and maim innocent bystanders... it happens all the time! By contrast, the pathetic distracted pedestrians usually only put themselves at risk. Adults should have the freedom to weigh the potential benefits of an activity against the potential risks, and make a decision on whether they want to tolerate the risk. "I want to stare at my phone while I'm walking about. Yes, I might walk into an open manhole, or into the path of an oncoming train, but I'm willing to accept that risk." (By contrast, you have no right to say, "I want to text while driving. Yes, I might kill an innocent bystander, but I'm willing to assume that risk.")

Cell Phone Carnage

The debate rages, as to how much motorists are distracted by cell-phone conversations, and whether driving-while-talking should be illegal.

My own opinion on the matter is... most people can probably do fine, talking and driving. Some people can't chew gum and drive at the same time. Unfortunately, we have to pass laws to protect other citizens from the Lowest Common Denominator... so perhaps restrictions are justified. Unfortunately.

There is a sad story today about a teenage girl in Kent, Washington, who was hit by the Amtrak as she walked across the railroad tracks, yammerin' on her phone. (Link to story HERE.)

What a shame.

But on the other hand... thank goodness she wasn't driving, huh? If she missed the train while walking, surely she could've missed another motorist, or a pedestrian, or a cyclist, while driving.

Text messaging = dead brain?

I was riding up the street yesterday - a street with a nice wide sidewalk alongside.

Three youths who appeared to be high school age were walking in the same direction, one on the sidewalk and the other two in the gutter pan. (I'm not sure why all three weren't on the sidewalk; there was plenty of width.) The two in the street were slowly drifting away from the sidewalk, and farther out into the street.

By the time I overtook them, the two youths in the street were almost halfway between the sidewalk and the center stripe. And I determined what had their undivided attention. All three were staring intently at their handheld digital devices, and punching the buttons.

I responded in what seemed like the appropriate way, with a loud "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" (A confession: when I encounter cows in the road and am by myself, I do the same thing. It's a greeting.)

They looked up momentarily, saw where they were, and meandered bovine-like back toward the sidewalk, still concentrating on their handhelds.

At least they were on foot, and therefore not posing much danger to anybody but themselves.

Unlike the conductor of the ill-fated commuter train in Los Angeles last week.

And unlike motorists, whose text-messaging behavior is arguably more hazardous than that of chemically-impaired drivers. (See article HERE.) Half of all drivers 18-24 in the UK admit to texting-while-driving. I'd guess the numbers are similar this side of the Pond. ("Grownups" don't seem to exercise any better judgment, although I'm sure they fancy themselves as much more responsible than kids when they're texting-while-driving.)

As a road-going bicyclist, my biggest fear is that I'll be victimized by a distracted or impaired driver.

I can ride legally and predictably, and be in the right place on the roadway. I can try to be highly visible. I can be watching out - riding defensively. (Including regular glances at my omnipresent helmet rear-view mirror.) But I can't fully compensate for the bad behavior of a driver who has chosen to impair himself, whether it be through chemical intake or total lack of attention to his driving.

I'd much rather deal with cows in the road!

Hamburger on the Highway!

This blog isn't intended to be "all about ME," but...

This morning I navigated myself into a crash. (D'oh!! I'm too old for such nonsense!)

At 6:45 or so I was headed for work, along a totally familiar route. Visibility was good. Traffic was super-light (a benefit of traveling at 6:45am). I was riding along, in total control, when I happened upon a lady walking a big ol' Rottweiler, maybe a half-block up the street. She used her other hand to wave at me... so I was trying to figure out who it was, and if I knew her. And - I spent too long figuring. (Distracted driving! I victimized myself!)

When I looked up-front again, I was headed directly toward a car on the side of the road... and WAY too close.

Two thoughts raced through my mind...

"Don't break off that side mirror!" followed immediately by, "Oh, &@#* - this is going to hurt!"

I redirected enough to miss the side mirror. It happened fast, but I think my front wheel went into the front wheel well of the car. And, I flew through the air with the greatest of ease and body-slammed the pavement on my left side.

Yeah - it hurt! But, after laying there for maybe 15 seconds, groaning about my pitiful plight, I was able to get up. (VICTORY!)

The nice lady who waved at me - who I don't think I've ever seen in my life - ran over. "Are you okay?" I told her I'm way too old, but I thought I'd probably be okay someday.

She said, "I live nearby - could I get my pickup and give you a ride someplace?" I took her up on the offer. (The front rim has rolled its last, and my fancy saddle is bent. I can replace a rim, and hopefully I can bend the saddle back into place.)

She took me and the bike home. I thanked her sincerely. Then got on the Long Haul Trucker and rode, somewhat gingerly, into work.

I've got a bit of road rash - treated with soap, water, and antiseptic. I 'spect my sore hip and sore shoulder will be reminding me of my mishap for a few weeks. (That hip has taken a beating over the years. I'm surprised it works at all.) I'm fortunate, only in that it could've been WAY worse. No visible damage to the victimized car on the side of the road. Nothing broken, or so it seems. And... I've already gotten about 4 miles of bicycling in, since the crash. (Gotta get back on that pony and ride... right?)