Once again, the News and Observer has found a problem to elevate to the EVERYBODY PANIC stage: speeding. This seems to be a theme with N&O researcher Pat Stith, whose last contribution was focusing on the world-ending problem of overweight trucks. In spite of Stith’s reporting, the sun did come up the following day and life went merrily on.

Now just in case you missed the point, the N&O has tried a different tack. Over the weekend, a car full of not-so-smart people crashed into a house at 3:30 in the morning. Many were killed when they were thrown from the vehicle. The driver is believed to have been intoxicated. Its a tragedy, sure enough, and I’m not making light of the injuries and deaths, but it illustrates a point.

The headline for this story was quite different Sunday than it was today. Today’s City and State section reads “Speeding blamed as 3 die in wreck.” You’ll note that this fails to mention that:

• Police suspect the driver was intoxicated.
• Those killed were not wearing their seatbelts.

So, was speeding really to blame for this accident? Or was the fact that the driver may have consumed a brewery’s worth of alcohol before sliding behind the wheel?

Ok, so then was speeding the cause of death? Tangentially, perhaps. The deaths may have been prevented if the victims had been wearing seat belts. At least two of the victims were ejected from the car. Why, then, did speeding get highlighted, if not to prop up the N&O’s speeding special report?

I’ll offer my own theory as to what really led to the accident. It goes like this:

1. Darwin’s theory of evolution – led to the driver drinking
2. Intoxication – lead the driver to speed and drive poorly
3. Speeding – lead the driver to swerve off the road
4. Newton’s First Law of Motion – “a body in motion will remain in motion.” This kept the car moving once it left the road.
5. Newton’s Third Law of Motion – “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The car hit the tree and the tree crumpled it.
6. Newton’s First Law of Motion, again – the car stopped but the victims kept moving

Speeding may have been involved, but it was not the cause of the accident. The driver being stupid was the cause of the accident.

I think speeding gets blamed more than it should for causing accidents. Speeding itself doesn’t cause accidents: being stupid does. If you’re driving faster than the speed at which you can safely handle a car (and others around you can handle you), you’re driving too fast and its only a matter of time before Darwin wins again.

It really has nothing to do with the speed. Safe driving all depends on the drivers and road conditions involved.

NASCAR drivers routinely drive 200 MPH. None of them die from speed. A race car driver’s cause of death is never given as “excessive speed.” Give those same drivers a few six-packs, though, turn them wloose on the track and guess what will happen. It won’t be speed that kills them – it will be them being stupid – drinking and driving.

Its crazy to hear in this nanny-state age we live in, but I think ultimately one day we may do away with speed limits on interstate highways, treating them much like the German autobahn. It would be policed the same way: if you drive faster than your abilities or conditions allow, you should be charged with reckless driving. I think that would put more personal responsibility on drivers, holding them accountable for their skills and judgement. Police would still patrol the highways but they would ticket based only on the situation. Drivers could even be ticketed for driving slower, if that driving presents a hazard to themselves or others. It all would depend on the situation.

I’d rather police get the bad drivers (or intoxicated ones) off the roads than going after the faster drivers who pay attention to what they and everyone else on the road are doing.

If there’s one good thing about being laid off, at least now my office coffee cup will get the washing its needed for some time now.

I woke with my head full of questions about the abrupt canceling of my product, trying to make sense of it. Since none of us were given exit interviews, this will serve as my thoughts as to why I’m now unemployed.

It was, and still is, a great product. None of the problems cited during our dismissal meeting were insurmountable. Either they were simply given to us to make us feel better about losing our jobs, or they reflected a profound lack of understanding of the product’s abilities on the part of upper management. Both of these options are concerning.
Continue reading →