As usual, I spend a lot of time with tongue-in-cheek in this one, and
I suspect people who know me will get a laugh or two, but it concerns a
serious subject, and it takes a very sobering turn at the end.
Frankly, I seriously suggest that loving Mom's, especially those with
little children, allow trusted friends or loved ones to read it first
and suggest whether or not they should read it.
It
was actually a very pleasant experience, and one which I will own up to
having, even though it took place within several hundred yards of D.C.
It
was Monday of the week just passed, and I was sitting in comfort
outside the Cozi Deli in Arlington, enjoying marvelous weather, a Bombay
salad, and a bottle of S. Pellegrino. Nearby, a Blondie lurked inside a
wrapper, waiting its turn to delight. At the next table, a lovely
young Asian woman sat worrying over her phone for a time. Then, in what
seemed to be frustrated but not unexpected resignation, she rose and
walked away with a purpose that suggested a polite but certain homicide
was in store for someone, somewhere.
She was soon replaced by an
Arlington police officer, who in turn was joined minutes later by a
fellow constable. As they both enjoyed a leisurely lunch, they were
approached by several folks who asked directions or had similar requests
for information. I observed their demeanor as they dealt with the
public, for I had already determined that these fellows might be a
source of information necessary for some impromptu research I wished to
carry out. They were friendly, professional, and unassuming. And so,
encouraged by this display, and after waiting for what I regarded as a
respectful amount of time before putting them through the momentary
suspicion of being interrupted by some nerd reading Thomas Paine, I
asked if they would excuse a question or two.
They agreed, so I
asked if they had spent any time on motor patrol, and the one officer
indicated that he had done so, and that his colleague was currently
serving in that capacity. My belief that they could provide the input I
needed being confirmed, I asked them to give me their estimation of how
many automobile accidents out of every ten on the interstates and other major highways were the result of one car
striking another from behind – the proverbial “rear-ender”. As I
suspected, they gave me one of what I figured were the two most likely
figures - specifically, six. I thought seven possible, but unlikely.
I
then asked how many out of those six were caused by the car in the rear
speeding up. The first officer said “On purpose?” to which I replied
“No, just any case at all." They both agreed that such an occurrence
was so rare as to say “Never”. So then, I reasoned out loud,
discounting for the moment all the usual issues such as following too
closely, talking on the phone – which they both were careful to say was a
serious issue on the highways – and other distractions, the majority of
accidents on the road were ultimately the result of cars slowing down,
most occurrences of which are sudden and, because they are the result of
incompetence, entirely unnecessary. I wasn’t trying to excuse
following too closely or any other bad driving habit; I just had a
different point to make. So far, these two amiable officers were with
me in my conclusions.
So then I asked how many of the remaining
four occurrences were the result of lane-changes. Leaving room for
other factors, they said “Most of them.”
With this, your
correspondent was batting a thousand. These officers had confirmed what
I was already convinced of, although it’s hardly profound: almost
every accident on the highways, the Interstates in particular, are the
result of people slowing down and/or changing lanes. In short, changes
in velocity – which I trust you realize consists of both speed and
direction – are the worst maneuvers to engage in behind the wheel while
traveling at high speed.
So, why all this bother? Well, it
happened one day while I was rolling down I-64 headed for
who-knows-where. I was north of Newport News, westbound in the right
lane, when I approached a State Police car that had pulled another
driver over, evidently in the process of enhancing the Commonwealth’s
revenue stream by means of ticketing someone who probably had done
nothing wrong, just something illegal.
A brief aside here, folks:
traffic tickets are not intended to change anyone’s driving habits.
They are a form of taxation, one that operates on the simple reality
that punishment kept below a certain tolerance level will result in no
behavioral modification, such modification being undesirable because it
will result in a lowering of the revenue generated by repetition of the
offending behavior. And spare me any retorts involving
driver-improvement courses; if you even thought of that, it indicates a
naiveté that would render any explanation pointless.
Back to my
experience; as I neared the scene, the officer noticed that I was just
moving along as if he wasn’t there, which to outward observation is
exactly what I should have been doing, my intent being to pass him
safely while doing nothing to interrupt the flow of traffic. In an act
that bled righteous indignation, he stopped suddenly while walking back
to his vehicle, fixed me with stare that I can only suppose was intended
to have some meaning to me, and shot out his right arm with a
surprising degree of passion for a Virginia State Trooper, plainly
indicating that I should have changed lanes. I remember thinking to
myself “Why would I do something so stupid and pointless?”
Why, indeed?
As
it turns out, the General Assembly had it in mind to address a very
real problem that occurs with frightening regularity, and it was this
that occasioned the Trooper’s antics. Every year, there are police
officers maimed or killed by vegetables disguised as human beings who
manage to slip past the rigid safeguards of the motor vehicle department
and get their seed-pods wrapped around a driver’s license. These
plant-lifes then get command of what is essentially a non-nuclear
missile and proceed to aim it in slip-shod fashion down the roads with
the rest of us at metal-tearing speeds. A common affliction among these
various cabbages and zucchinis is a tendency not unlike that displayed
by a moth when confronted with a bug-zapper: when they see a vehicle
with bright flashing lights, they actually steer for it. Folks, I
promise you I’m not making this up. There have been many officers
killed or seriously wounded by morons who are incapable of understanding
the basic law of physics which tells us that two forms of matter cannot
occupy the same space at the same time, and the General Assembly,
laudably, wants the carnage to stop.
Their answer?
Require the general public to engage in the two activities that cause almost every accident on the highway…
A
few days after my encounter with Trooper Indignant, I’m back on the
Interstate, going who-knows-where. Imagine my surprise when I see a
sign on the side of the road that says “State Law – You must slow down
or change lanes when approaching a stationary emergency vehicle”. Or
something close to that.
Son of a gun; no wonder that Trooper was
waving at me like I was a schoolboy who was about to walk into the wrong
bathroom! He thought I was doing something wrong!
I wasn’t, of
course, but I was breaking the law, a law of which I had been unaware,
or so I would have been told if he caught up with me at the 7-11.
Known
as the “Slow Down Move Over” law, Section 46.2 – 921.1 of the Code of
Virginia requires motorists who are approaching parked emergency
vehicles with flashing lights to change lanes or slow down.
At least that’s what we are told it says.
In
another garden-variety example of incompetence by government – you
know, the same people who issue driver’s licenses to broccoli – the
law’s language is confusing and open to opposing conclusions. In other
words, a lawyer’s dream.
We start with the statute’s summary:
§
46.2-921.1. Drivers to yield right-of-way or reduce speed when
approaching stationary emergency vehicles on highways; penalties.
Seems plain, doesn’t it? “You see blinking lights, move over or slow down”.
Okay, I got that.
Then
we get to the actual requirements that the general public is to be
saddled with, requirements which most often serve the purpose of
preventing people from doing things that ordinary people don’t do anyway
- like slathering hand-lotion on their pancakes – or threatening them
with fines if they fail to do things that ordinary people would do
anyway – like waiting till they’re out of the tub before spooling up the
blow dryer. . .
The driver of any motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary emergency vehicle, as defined in § 46.2-920, (Is this where they define stationary? or emergency?)
that is displaying a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light
or lights as provided in §§ 46.2-1022, 46.2-1023, and 46.2-1024, (Evidently where the terms “flashing” “blinking” and “alternating” are defined)
shall (i) on a highway having at least four lanes, at least two of
which are intended for traffic proceeding as the approaching vehicle,
proceed with caution and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and
traffic conditions, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a
lane not adjacent to that occupied by the stationary emergency vehicle
or (ii) if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with
due caution (up to this point, the actual requirements are quite
reasonable and intelligent; the law’s intent - fewer maimed or dead
police officers and motorists – is a good one) and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions.
Do
you see what is actually being required by the statute if changing
lanes is not practical? It could be said this way: “Be careful and keep
driving in a way that is appropriate for the conditions”.
Folks,
on a clear day with no conditions that are actually affecting the
roadway and where the sign says “Speed Limit 65 m.ph.”, a “safe speed
for highway conditions” is 65 miles an hour. Well, actually, a safe
speed in those conditions with an average modern automobile would top
out at about 85, but I realize regular folks have their sensibilities.
The
law’s instruction does not require a motorist to slow down. The
argument as to whether or not he should is irrelevant for the point.
I’d like to think that even the average Virginia driver who is in the
right lane while approaching an emergency vehicle at 70 m.p.h. and sees a
semi 50 yards off in his rear-view mirror will realize that engaging in
a high-rate deceleration to 35 m.p.h is NOT “maintaining a safe speed
for highway conditions”. Maybe I shouldn’t think that, but I’d like to.
On the contrary, the law specifically requires the motorist to adopt
and maintain a speed that is appropriate for the conditions, which may
very well be the same speed he’s been going all along, or it may be a
speed which is faster than he’s been going. If you’ve just left a
section of highway where road construction has reasonably slowed you to
20 m.p.h. and you shortly encounter a State Police vehicle with it’s
bubble gum machine on, I would hope you wouldn’t slow down even more.
Chances are you could handle going by the officer at 45 without being
irresistibly drawn over the line and into his personal space. I also
don’t see, at that speed or maybe a bit more, the wind vortex of your
passing car sucking him into the path of oncoming traffic.
Considered overall, the law is worded awkwardly, but we can live with that. We do all the time anyway.
But
here’s the bottom line: The General Assembly has passed a law that
attempts to deal with a serious safety issue by requiring motorists to
do either of the two most dangerous things on the highway. And in
practical reality – that place where fender meets fender – the results
are ugly and frightening.
I spend a lot of time on the
Interstate, and here is what you’ll see: the all-too-typical Virginia
driver – a thing frightening all by itself – will approach a vehicle
with flashing lights and, conditioned by society to believe that laws
are intended to tell him what to do, will immediately begin to attempt
to change lanes. Okay, like I said, I get it; so far, so good.
The
problem is found in the result; because he (or she – for those with a
PC fixation) is an all-too-typical Virginia driver, the maneuver is
usually ill-advised and poorly executed. Velocity conditions between
lanes on an Interstate are highly unstable; reading their conditions and
making the necessary calculations, although instinctive in a good
driver, takes much more time than most realize. In our little scenario,
Cabbage Jones obeys the law without regard for the consequences because
he’s too stupid to do otherwise. Over he goes, and the next thing is
he’s on the brakes because the tail lights of the car in front of him
just lit up and are approaching his nose at an alarming rate – most
likely because Spinach Smith just did the same stupid thing two cars
ahead. His foot involuntarily goes down on the brake to recreate the
desired reaction space he had a moment ago, and this starts a chain
reaction of other people changing lanes because the traffic is slowing
down in front of them, which in turn slows down the traffic behind them,
which in turn – well, you get the idea. It isn’t anything at all
unusual for traffic to come to a complete stop on an interstate highway
as a result of this or any number of other kinds of lunacy. Please
remember that point; it’s important.
For varying lengths of
time, depending on the amount of traffic and the moron/intelligent
driver ratio, there is a period where the angels hold their breath and
rejoice that they won’t suffer the same effect as a human if they get
caught in an undesirable hood-to-trunk lid interface.
In the
best-case scenario, traffic is impeded for absolutely no justifiable
reason as a highly dangerous condition, created by a law with a good
goal but disastrous consequences, is worked out with varying degrees of
success by the driving public.
Worst case? It’s only a matter of time before somebody dies.
It
is a horror story of unimaginable proportions. It took place a few
years ago not far from where I live. A nightmarish wreck had occurred
on Interstate 64. A tractor-trailer traveling 55 m.p.h or perhaps
faster struck another tractor-trailer that was sitting motionless at the
end of a line of traffic. There is no record as to why the traffic was
stopped, but the law of statistical averages would indicate it was the
result of something stupid and entirely unnecessary, the kind of thing I
told you to remember earlier. There were no skid marks behind the rear
vehicle, indicating that the driver never attempted to slow down. We
will never know why, because he was killed instantly in the impact. The
damage was not yet finished, though, because both vehicles soon became
infernos. Rescue workers unfortunate enough to be on duty that night
were faced with a miserable task, but it would be some time before they
knew how horrific the situation really was.
After the fires were extinguished, the nauseating process of clearing away the effects began.
Eventually,
it came time to pull the two vehicles apart, and I can barely imagine
the emotions that must have torn through the insides of the workers as
they realized a third vehicle was involved. Caught between the two
trucks, it and its contents barely recognizable as anything other than
more debris, was a passenger van with 5 occupants; a vacationing family.
Suppose for the moment you were the driver of the van, and you
saw the approaching semi, traveling at 60 miles an hour, in your mirror
when it was 200 yards away. You would have had 6.82 seconds to look
into your children’s eyes and say goodbye.
Then suppose for a
moment you learned it was you, for no reason other than your own
incompetence and petty fear, that caused the initial slow-down and
subsequent chain-reaction.
I’m going to stop here. I hope I’ve
made my point about stupidity – legal and practical - and the effect it
can have on society, especially at 70 miles an hour.
