Tom Kovach
Will "road rage" become a social barometer?
Which country's rules apply?
By Tom Kovach
If you live in a city of almost any size bigger than Hooterville or Bugtussle, chances are that you've seen an incident of so-called "road rage." Some states have even passed laws about "aggressive driving." The problem with legislation about "road rage" is the same as the problem with "hate crime" laws: it is an attempt by government to regulate thought. There are already laws against improper lane usage, failure to use a turn signal, or unsafe lane changes. In fact, people that fail to follow those existing laws are a major cause of "road rage" for the rest of us! And, that fact may be on the increase.
It would be foolish to attempt to justify the recently incident of deadly "road rage" in Texas. But, do similar incidents across the country have a common factor? And, if they do, then what does that common factor tell us? And, how can that information help to prevent other frustrations, crashes, injuries, and deaths? Furthermore, do programs and laws that purport to "attack road rage" really help to improve traffic safety? (One such program has found a unique way to make money from "road rage"!) If there are laws against thinking in an aggressive way, then shouldn't there be laws against driving in a stupid way? Government has singled out the poor, helpless cell phone — even though "inattentive driving" laws have been on the books for decades. But, they have not passed laws against applying make-up while driving, nor against rich people with lap dogs behind the steering wheel. (Is there a lap dog lobby? There might be one in Tennessee!)
In the recent incident, a van driver was in the far-left (passing) lane on an Interstate highway. A sedan driver was ahead of him in the lane, but not passing anyone. The van driver flashed his lights several times, but the sedan driver did not yield the lane. Then, the van driver passed the sedan on the right. Although passing on the right is illegal in many states — and ill-advised, even if it's legal — the van was blocked from passing properly. But, after passing on the right, the van driver cut back into the passing lane too soon, and collided with the sedan. The sedan swerved across the median, and flipped onto its roof, thus producing the deadly crash. The van driver made several errors; but, did the sedan driver contribute to the cause of the accident?
In 1997, New York began the first specific "aggressive driving" program in the country. (Notably, the program exists, even in the absence of an "aggressive driving" statute.) The New York State Police define an Aggressive Driver as one who: "Operates a motor vehicle in a selfish, bold or pushy manner, without regard for the rights or safety of the other users of the streets and highways." By refusing to move over when the van driver flashed his lights (thus asserting his right to pass), was the sedan driver operating "in a selfish manner ... without regard for the rights and safety" of the van driver? If so, then just who actually caused the accident? (Again, I am not trying to justify the van driver's reaction to the sedan blocking the lane. I'm merely pointing out that his alleged "rage" might not have been the "first domino" in the accident.)
Perhaps you're thinking, "It was only one accident. How does that affect the rest of America?" Perhaps you're thinking, "Hey, wait a minute! The sedan occupants are the 'victims,' and most of them are dead. Don't pick on them." I'm not picking on the dead people. The driver lived, and was not injured. (The people in the back seat died. Were any of them wearing seatbelts? If not, was the driver ticketed?) My question is: did the sedan driver create the "first domino" by refusing to yield the lane to the van driver when he flashed his lights to pass? (If there was enough room for the van to pass on the right, then there was enough room for the sedan to pull over. Apparently, the sedan driver refused, and that is the thrust of my argument.)
Now, that begs two questions. First, why was the sedan in the passing lane if it was not passing? (Section 545.051(b), of the Texas Transportation Code, "Driving on the right side of the roadway," requires drivers to stay to the farthest right-hand lane available, unless passing another vehicle.) Second, why didn't the sedan pull over when the van came up to pass? And, those questions, coupled with the identities of the vehicle occupants, beg another question: was the driver following the rules of the United States, or the rules of another country? All of the sedan occupants were "Indian nationals," according to the local news account. In India, people drive on the left. Thus, according to the instincts of that driver's upbringing, she was in the slow lane. Was that difference in understanding the real cause of the accident?
If the language barrier, or the "drive on the left" instinct, was the real cause of the accident, then we can expect to see an increase of such accidents across America. Why? Because the forces of political correctness have compelled state drivers' license offices to relax testing standards. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, may now demand tests in their native language — despite the fact that driver's manuals and road signs are in English. (When I was stationed in Korea, many [but not all] road signs were in both Korean and English. But, foreign aid from America built many of those roads in the first place. And, I learned to read Korean within the first six weeks that I was there.) Because of the unique status of the United States as a beacon of freedom, we attract immigrants from around the world. That's great. But, those immigrants need to learn America's language, and assimilate into America's culture, rather than forcing America to become more like the places from which they escaped. If immigrants refuse to become American while they live here, then one of the social barometers of change might very well be traffic accidents such as these.
Of course, as a pioneer in political correctness, NY State also includes flashing one's lights "... because they were annoyed ..." as an act of "aggressive driving." (Almost any new car purchased in the past 20 years has a "flash-to-pass" headlight feature. But, who said that law has to include common sense? I'm so glad that I left New York, even though the Upstate scenery is beautiful.) As part of their helpful tips to prevent driver stress, New York actually advises motorists to, "...avoid anger-inducing talk radio ...." Thus, we see direct proof that the State is trying to regulate thought, rather than driving actions. (Doesn't the "victim" of stupid acts have a right to become annoyed? Poking along in the passing lane is stupid, and it causes many accidents. But, stupid drivers pretend that passing in the passing lane is "aggressive.") The Interstate highways were originally designed to be traveled upon at 150 miles per hour by cars with 1950s technology. Cars are now much safer, and more nimble, but the Left wants us to drive at one-third the design speed. I prefer this anti-Nader statement from the 1960s, "Ban low-performance drivers, not high-performance cars!" That is a golden nugget of conservative thought.
Notably, the US Department of Transportation keeps statistics on various factors that cause or exacerbate crashes. Those factors include: speed, seat belt usage, elderly drivers, young drivers, and school-bus accidents. There is no category, however, for accidents caused by people from other countries (legally or otherwise) that don't know the rules, and/or can't read the signs. Similarly, I was not able to get a statistical breakout of immigrant-caused accidents from the Tennessee Department of Safety. This is despite the fact that Tennessee was in the national spotlight for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. That spotlight was turned on by Nashville talk-radio giant Phil Valentine, whose commentaries on that topic helped to spawn a new advocacy group, and forced a change in the state's procedures.
And, that gets us back to the original concept of this column. If a person cannot read the driver's manual, or the road signs, then that person should not be allowed to drive. Somehow, we in America have become convinced that it's OK to allow more fatal accidents, rather than to "offend" anyone by trying to prevent such accidents. If that trend continues, then "road rage" and immigrant-involved accidents can be expected to increase at parallel rates, thus producing a societal barometer of political correctness.
© Tom Kovach
If you live in a city of almost any size bigger than Hooterville or Bugtussle, chances are that you've seen an incident of so-called "road rage." Some states have even passed laws about "aggressive driving." The problem with legislation about "road rage" is the same as the problem with "hate crime" laws: it is an attempt by government to regulate thought. There are already laws against improper lane usage, failure to use a turn signal, or unsafe lane changes. In fact, people that fail to follow those existing laws are a major cause of "road rage" for the rest of us! And, that fact may be on the increase.
It would be foolish to attempt to justify the recently incident of deadly "road rage" in Texas. But, do similar incidents across the country have a common factor? And, if they do, then what does that common factor tell us? And, how can that information help to prevent other frustrations, crashes, injuries, and deaths? Furthermore, do programs and laws that purport to "attack road rage" really help to improve traffic safety? (One such program has found a unique way to make money from "road rage"!) If there are laws against thinking in an aggressive way, then shouldn't there be laws against driving in a stupid way? Government has singled out the poor, helpless cell phone — even though "inattentive driving" laws have been on the books for decades. But, they have not passed laws against applying make-up while driving, nor against rich people with lap dogs behind the steering wheel. (Is there a lap dog lobby? There might be one in Tennessee!)
In the recent incident, a van driver was in the far-left (passing) lane on an Interstate highway. A sedan driver was ahead of him in the lane, but not passing anyone. The van driver flashed his lights several times, but the sedan driver did not yield the lane. Then, the van driver passed the sedan on the right. Although passing on the right is illegal in many states — and ill-advised, even if it's legal — the van was blocked from passing properly. But, after passing on the right, the van driver cut back into the passing lane too soon, and collided with the sedan. The sedan swerved across the median, and flipped onto its roof, thus producing the deadly crash. The van driver made several errors; but, did the sedan driver contribute to the cause of the accident?
In 1997, New York began the first specific "aggressive driving" program in the country. (Notably, the program exists, even in the absence of an "aggressive driving" statute.) The New York State Police define an Aggressive Driver as one who: "Operates a motor vehicle in a selfish, bold or pushy manner, without regard for the rights or safety of the other users of the streets and highways." By refusing to move over when the van driver flashed his lights (thus asserting his right to pass), was the sedan driver operating "in a selfish manner ... without regard for the rights and safety" of the van driver? If so, then just who actually caused the accident? (Again, I am not trying to justify the van driver's reaction to the sedan blocking the lane. I'm merely pointing out that his alleged "rage" might not have been the "first domino" in the accident.)
Perhaps you're thinking, "It was only one accident. How does that affect the rest of America?" Perhaps you're thinking, "Hey, wait a minute! The sedan occupants are the 'victims,' and most of them are dead. Don't pick on them." I'm not picking on the dead people. The driver lived, and was not injured. (The people in the back seat died. Were any of them wearing seatbelts? If not, was the driver ticketed?) My question is: did the sedan driver create the "first domino" by refusing to yield the lane to the van driver when he flashed his lights to pass? (If there was enough room for the van to pass on the right, then there was enough room for the sedan to pull over. Apparently, the sedan driver refused, and that is the thrust of my argument.)
Now, that begs two questions. First, why was the sedan in the passing lane if it was not passing? (Section 545.051(b), of the Texas Transportation Code, "Driving on the right side of the roadway," requires drivers to stay to the farthest right-hand lane available, unless passing another vehicle.) Second, why didn't the sedan pull over when the van came up to pass? And, those questions, coupled with the identities of the vehicle occupants, beg another question: was the driver following the rules of the United States, or the rules of another country? All of the sedan occupants were "Indian nationals," according to the local news account. In India, people drive on the left. Thus, according to the instincts of that driver's upbringing, she was in the slow lane. Was that difference in understanding the real cause of the accident?
If the language barrier, or the "drive on the left" instinct, was the real cause of the accident, then we can expect to see an increase of such accidents across America. Why? Because the forces of political correctness have compelled state drivers' license offices to relax testing standards. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, may now demand tests in their native language — despite the fact that driver's manuals and road signs are in English. (When I was stationed in Korea, many [but not all] road signs were in both Korean and English. But, foreign aid from America built many of those roads in the first place. And, I learned to read Korean within the first six weeks that I was there.) Because of the unique status of the United States as a beacon of freedom, we attract immigrants from around the world. That's great. But, those immigrants need to learn America's language, and assimilate into America's culture, rather than forcing America to become more like the places from which they escaped. If immigrants refuse to become American while they live here, then one of the social barometers of change might very well be traffic accidents such as these.
Of course, as a pioneer in political correctness, NY State also includes flashing one's lights "... because they were annoyed ..." as an act of "aggressive driving." (Almost any new car purchased in the past 20 years has a "flash-to-pass" headlight feature. But, who said that law has to include common sense? I'm so glad that I left New York, even though the Upstate scenery is beautiful.) As part of their helpful tips to prevent driver stress, New York actually advises motorists to, "...avoid anger-inducing talk radio ...." Thus, we see direct proof that the State is trying to regulate thought, rather than driving actions. (Doesn't the "victim" of stupid acts have a right to become annoyed? Poking along in the passing lane is stupid, and it causes many accidents. But, stupid drivers pretend that passing in the passing lane is "aggressive.") The Interstate highways were originally designed to be traveled upon at 150 miles per hour by cars with 1950s technology. Cars are now much safer, and more nimble, but the Left wants us to drive at one-third the design speed. I prefer this anti-Nader statement from the 1960s, "Ban low-performance drivers, not high-performance cars!" That is a golden nugget of conservative thought.
Notably, the US Department of Transportation keeps statistics on various factors that cause or exacerbate crashes. Those factors include: speed, seat belt usage, elderly drivers, young drivers, and school-bus accidents. There is no category, however, for accidents caused by people from other countries (legally or otherwise) that don't know the rules, and/or can't read the signs. Similarly, I was not able to get a statistical breakout of immigrant-caused accidents from the Tennessee Department of Safety. This is despite the fact that Tennessee was in the national spotlight for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. That spotlight was turned on by Nashville talk-radio giant Phil Valentine, whose commentaries on that topic helped to spawn a new advocacy group, and forced a change in the state's procedures.
And, that gets us back to the original concept of this column. If a person cannot read the driver's manual, or the road signs, then that person should not be allowed to drive. Somehow, we in America have become convinced that it's OK to allow more fatal accidents, rather than to "offend" anyone by trying to prevent such accidents. If that trend continues, then "road rage" and immigrant-involved accidents can be expected to increase at parallel rates, thus producing a societal barometer of political correctness.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
