Driving is a Life Issue
If I were a less attentive cyclist, I would probably be dead, or screaming in pain, my fatless frame spread-eagled across some poor, inattentive driver’s hood. Not that some cars wouldn’t benefit aesthetically from my attractive body displayed across the front. The simple hood ornament is so very yesterday. Life-sized figurative car art: that’s the future.
Yeah, I almost got run over today. I almost get run over a lot of days, as the suburban drivers in the Dallas area raise negligent driving to an art-form. They all seem to follow the same illegal and unsafe rules, such as placing the back tires on the thick white line before an intersection. Very few people seem to walk anywhere; cities in Texas don’t generally seem made for pedestrian travel, and so drivers making right-hand turns can, perhaps, be forgiven for looking only to the left before turning. Thing is, I am often on the right, ready to cross, having the right of way, staring at the back of the soon-to-be-turning driver’s head who has no thought to the possibility of my existence. I could deal with people not knowing I exist when I was in high school. On the road? Not so much. So I wait, sometimes pretending to move forward while keeping myself out of harm’s way, just in case the driver happens to turn his head to gain a newfound appreciation for looking toward the exact spot he plans to drive over. I’ll always be a teacher, even if I’m not in the classroom.
These near-near-death experiences have got me thinking more about a friend of mine’s argument that how we drive is an important life issue. I see his point first hand. There really is a pro-life way of driving and an anti-life way of driving. With all due disrespect, I must say that Dallas area drivers don’t strike me as the most pro-life of drivers. To say many of them are reckless is an understatement. I’ve driven in a number of these United States, and the drivers here are the worst I’ve seen. Ohio drivers who go three mph under the speed limit in the fast lane of the freeway are the most annoying. I don’t have a solution to my daily cycling dangers, but I mention all this in hopes that someone who nearly has, nearly will, or really will paint his car Kyle might think twice before blindly turning right.
Comments are closed.
Amen, Kyle! This has been an issue of mine for years. I walk a lot and take public transport – I refuse on principle to drive to work. And yet, even though the law is on my side, I would not dare step onto a pedestrian crossing. The differnce with northern Europe could not be more stark (not southern Europe!) – there, if you even glance toward the road, the cars will stop.
I’m tired of the small inconveniences. Traffic rules are designed to aid cars. The wait time for pedestrians are too long, and sometimes we also must give way to turning cars. In downtown DC, there is a further indignity in the mornings. On one very busy intersection, there are hired traffic people. Their job is to get things moving. One thing they do is blow the whistle on pedestrians a god 10-20 minutes before the light changes (we have a countdown on the pedestrian lights). Why? To facilitate turning cars. Sorry, but here I draw the line. People who come out of the metro station and are walking to work must yield to monstrous SUV benemoths ripping up our streets and destroying our planet.
I hear you. I stay on the sidewalks as much as possible, especially as my son is often in the kid seat behind me. I’ll bike over bumpy fields before braving the road itself. I used to ride my bicycle throughout high school and my first few years of college, even in the sub-zero, snowy winter months in Iowa. Didn’t get my driver’s license until I was 19. I started cycling to work again when gas prices went ballistic, but I haven’t had any desire to go back to driving regularly even though prices are down.
19? I got my license at 28!
I got my license around 22. I always walked when an undergrad.
But I’ve been thinking about driving the last couple days and its relationship to abortion and health care. It’s argued by some that an increase in health care will automatically mean more abortions, even if it is not intended (I agree some people might have it who would not have it, but I also think more would not have it who would now). But let’s say it is true. It’s double effect which is again always forgotten here. It’s not intended, and just because there is a bad consequence from a good, if it is not intended, and if the good is in proportion far greater, the good can be done (the problem is if you intend the evil, then it is consequentialism; the sad thing is I’ve seen some argue it is consequentialism to allow double effect!) A good way to represent this is driving. We don’t intend drunk driving, but allowing driving as a whole will increase drunk driving and drunk driving deaths. We know it will happen, no one I know who argues against health care because of the double effect addition of abortion argue against driving because of the evil of drunk driving. The thing is, there is much more evil done than drunk driving (environmental harm, road rage, etc), and still with all that, we see driving as a proportional good. It’s necessary in today’s world, even as health care reform is. That’s the thing. I wish people would think this through. Of course, how health care reform is done is to be argued, and it is best to limit the double effect, but when it can’t be done, as Cardinal Dulles pointed out, this doesn’t limit the need for reform or shouldn’t put a stop to it.
Amsterdam would be paradise for you – as would many European cities. Never seen as many bikes as in Amsterdam. I think the right-on-red that doesn’t exist in Europe makes it tough for bikers, you know – “where’d my lane go ??” I rode from San Diego to Oceanside (101) a few times, a gorgeous ride (I have Lance Armstrong’s bike from a few years ago but not the skills LOL), but never rode it in a city.
I’ve driven from San Diego to Vancouver – and the people get more polite the further North you get. This year, I drove about 9000 miles in Europe, from Barcelona to Amsterdam and back, among other things – and on average, Europeans are better drivers, and there’s real infrastructure for cyclists. Plus, you won’t find too many pickup trucks or gigantic SUVs.
130mph on the Autobahn weeee – and disciplined. I didn’t see a single accident on the entire drive. People actually change lanes when they see you coming onto the highway from a ramp *gasp*. I think one reason driving is better in EUrope is that not everyone has to drive, given the shorter distances and much better public transportation. Highway conditions are far better, but in some countries you have to pay (heftily in France) to use them. You also can’t overtake on the right on highways and there are few exits, preventing the nightmarish situation in places like (Un)Pleasanton, CA.
As a general rule, stay North of Rome if you drive :-)
In Paris, I was in two huge 6-or-so-kane roundabouts…together with cyclists. In Avignon, I thought I’d never get out of the medieval alleys. Now nothing scares me :D
The most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen on a freeway was in Normandie – a road hazard came up way ahead, before I even saw it – EVERY car put on its hazard lights at the same time, as if lit by a common switch. Damn Commies ;-)
My GPS went philosophical/Buddhist on me in France, stating, “The roundabout is your destination.”
Dave Barry maintains that the worst drivers in the world are in Miami. He calculates that the average speed is 53 mph, according to the following:
49% of the drivers are going at 80mph
49% of the drivers are going at 30mph
2% are backing up
I wouldn’t necessarily call driving a life issue, although a pedestrian did almost kill himself stepping in front of my car this morning. Driving is an occasion of sin for many people though. In a world of microwaves and downloadable movies, it’s the last place we’re forced to wait for another person. It’s also a great opportunity to demonstrate charity. People do notice.
I only ride a bike for recreational purposes and I am extremely uncomfortable riding on streets.
With that said, I would like to add that many bicyclists are dangerous and neglectful too. In my unscientific and probably wrong opinion (though I suspect not too far from the mark), 70% of automobile drivers violate traffic laws (abrupt lane change, rolling “stops”–especially at right on red, failure to use turn signals).
On the other hand, I guess that 97% of bicyclists violate traffic laws while riding on the streets either by blowing through stop signs/red lights, going against traffic, etc.
With all of that said, while driving and coming across a bicyclists,I slowdown and give the rider space, yielding when necessary.
Kyle:
I am very sorry to hear about your traffic incident.
Here in the Califonia, cyclists reject the term “accident” because there’s nothing accidental about the reckless manners exhibited by a minority of motorists or the emphasis our laws put on motoring convenience.
FWIW, I got my drivers license on my 16th birthday, but I’ve cycled almost daily (weather permitting) every day since.
If I were a less attentive pedestrian, I would certainly have received severe injuries, on several occasions, from reckless cyclists using sidewalks that were meant for pedestrians. There are reckless drivers, but there are also reckless cyclists, bicycling at 20 mph, weaving in and out of pedestrians, on sidewalks. There are cases in which pedestrians have been killed by cyclists, on sidewalks. The absence of respect for other people is not limited to drivers. My experience of cyclists is that they, in general, show no more respect for pedestrians than drivers show for cyclists.
You haven’t seen a death wish until you’ve encountered Roman Vespa drivers (about 500 per traffic light :P). I saw one get run over by police near the Vatican.
Quite a few cyclists in cities, like SF, seem to be unaware of/don’t care about a car’s blind spot. I’ve had cyclists come from behind on my left, then cutting in front of my hood to the right. A certain arrogance is common among people regardless of vehicle. I never trust in my right of way but rather try to spot bad drivers/riders. The still common cell phone (hand held, illegal in CA) talker/driver is a prime example. I’ve only encountered politeness merging onto the highway in Europe, here in CA a few have tried to run me off the road, two even grinned at me with glee (men, of course, that scourge of humanity) In SoCal, don’t even try to be polite with merging, people think it’s a trap lol. In general, look out for beefed up pickup trucks, Escalades (bad taste on wheels) and older lower grade sports cars in bad shape in particular.
In Oregon forests, look out for bears :P I saw one right in front of my hood, evaded to the left, so it hit the side door rather than me hitting it head on. My Honda Pilot didn’t have a scratch or dent, just bear grease.
Health care reform is not a good example of double effect because it is manifestly possible (as the House demonstrated) to act in a way to minimize or eliminate the negative effect.
And drunk driving is also a poor parallel. Abortions might increase because the government is paying for medical insurance that specifically covers abortions. Building highways does not specifically subsidize drunk driving, and we indeed have laws and enforcement and social stigmas to prevent drunk driving (again minimizing the negative effect).
In short, I think you are very much under-estimating our duty to limit the negative effect.
I also suspect that Cardinal Dulles would not be terribly pleased with the way his statement is so routinely trotted out here as if it give an unqualified green light to funding abortion so long as the intent is some other social good. Here is what he said:
“vote [for an appropriations bill that includes some provisions for funding abortions] might arguably be licit if the funding for abortion were only incidental and could not be removed from a bill that was otherwise very desirable.”
“might arguably be licit” — It would be difficult for me to image weaker language being used. Yet you and MM bandy this statement about as if it compels Catholics to support health care reform even if it funds abortion.
What we should have been doing is working like hell to ensure the best possible bill was passed, rather than arguing that a problematic bill is acceptable.