The need for laws reveals a sad truth
Last week, as I was perusing a copy of the Toronto Sun (the Toronto Star, sadly, was sold out), I came across a column written by former Ontario Ombudsman André Marin. In this particular issue, Marin was bemoaning the persistence of Ontarians in using their handheld devices to talk, text, or otherwise entertain themselves while driving. I’m not sure what drives people (pardon the pun) to divert their gaze whilst controlling 4000 pounds of steel at speeds three times that of Usain Bolt, but I do know I am in agreement that such behaviour is a serious problem.
Where I somewhat disagree with Marin, however, is the approach he suggests legislators take to combat the menace. Speaking to the relative inefficacy of current laws in stopping drivers from using their devices, Marin chides car manufacturers directly for doing nothing to “discourag(e) these lawless drivers who are responsible for so much carnage on our streets and highways.” He goes on to list various technologies that could be implemented into new vehicles, but have instead been “simply disregarded” by many brands.
“…it is not the responsibility of car makers to idiot-proof their products.”
While I am admittedly not tech-savvy enough to evaluate the potential ability for such hands-free hardware to actually reduce distracted driving, I am cognizant of one very important detail: it is not the responsibility of car makers to idiot-proof their products. When a person is provided with the privilege (yes, privilege—not right) of a licence, they assume with it the responsibilities of safely sharing the road with others granted the same opportunity. Unfortunately, this seems to join road-awareness in slipping the minds of many motorists at the sound of an iPhone notification.
Now, if all humans exercised decency and respect for the lives of others, I acquiesce that we would not need laws against murder, theft, or fraud. Yet when Marin compares the need for manufacturers to join the battle against distracted driving with the creation of mandatory seatbelt legislation, he is ignoring the brazen selfishness of the former. To refuse to wear a seatbelt may at most times be foolish, but it is a self-limiting act that has the potential to bring harm only to the person in question. When someone drives distracted, they aren’t putting just their own life in jeopardy. They risk injury or even death to each and every driver and passenger with whom they cross paths.
“When someone drives distracted, they aren’t putting just their own life in jeopardy.”
Marin is a highly-educated man with great expertise and experience in the world of law. I am not intent to discuss or debate the numbers of distracted driving charges laid each year, the fees or demerit points associated with those charges, or the changes we can make to our current laws in an attempt to reduce such a dangerous activity. With distracted driving as the “new” drunk driving, the 21st century has brought a fresh concern of selfishness to our roads. I cannot be sure that fancy, no-touch technology in vehicles will make my morning commute any safer, but I am certain it will not make drivers any less audacious.
I am not saying further distracted driving legislation cannot be part of the solution. It is a sad fact, though, that we have this problem to solve.
Photo Courtesy of Naturalistic Driving Study.