The season for motorcycles is upon us. The month of May is Motorcycle Awareness Month.
Some say motorcycles are dangerous. I say that’s ka-ka! It’s the rider who can be dangerous. Statistics show that the percentage of intoxicated motorcycle riders in fatal crashes is greater than the percentage of intoxicated drivers on our roads. Shall we blame the motorcycle for that? Riders are not supposed to ride between lanes of traffic, but they do. Is that the motorcycles fault? I will never understand why we fail to put the blame where it belongs.
The licensing procedure for motorcycles is also a problem. From personal experience I can tell you that DMV examiners who conduct road tests for cyclists, quite often, do not possess motorcycle licenses. Yet, somehow, the DMV feels they are qualified to judge applicants for an MC license.
I recall one experience where the applicant made very wide circles. The examiner asked me why some applicants made wide circles and others made tight circles. I explained to him that it takes more skill to make a tight circle. On another occasion, the cyclists wasn’t able to get the bike started. He kept kicking and kicking but it wouldn’t start. The examiner asked me what the problem was.. He thought the bike was defective. I explained that the applicant failed to turn on the gas valve.
The biggest problem with the testing procedure is not the lack of qualifications of the examiner but the procedure itself. An applicant can take a test on a small Honda with an engine of 100cc. If he passes the test he receives a license that qualifies him/her to ride a 1000cc Harley. Absurd. It’s like testing someone in a car, which would then qualify them to drive a tractor-trailer.
To add insult to injury, mopeds (limited use motorcycles) are classified by their range of speeds. There are three classifications for the inconsequential moped but only one for any size motorcycle. Does that make any sense?
Keep in mind that 25 percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes are riding their vehicles without valid motorcycle licenses at the time of the collisions.
You should also know that signal lights on a motorcycle do not turn off automatically as they do in a car. The rider has to turn it off. Quite often they don’t remember to do so. Beware of cyclists who are signaling. It might not mean what you think it means.
There’s lots of blame to go around when it comes to colliding with motorcycles, and the DMV needs to share some of it.
NY State, as do many other states, allow teenagers to get driving licenses at age 16, albeit a junior license. They do place restrictions on such licenses but, as is often the case, these rules are just feel good rules that do nothing to insure safety on the roads.
For instance, NY law requires teens to have 30 to 50 hours of supervised instruction before going for a road test. I can tell you from personal experience that the parent just has to sign the form. No proof that the training was actually given is required.
On Long Island, once in possession of a junior license, teens may drive unsupervised if going from home to a job or school. In upstate counties, they are allowed to drive unsupervised for any reason between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. they can only drive from home to work. In the five boroughs of New York City, teens with a junior license are not allowed to drive under any circumstances at any time.
Such laws are not strong enough to fully protect new teen drivers and other users of the road. Half of all teens will be involved in a car crash before graduating from high school. That crash may involve you. The fatal crash rate of 16-year-olds is nearly twice as high at night, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Most of these tragic crashes happen relatively early – between 9 p.m. and midnight. In the United States, the first six months after getting a license are the most dangerous times and risk remains high during the first year. Until young drivers turn 25, their crash risk remains two to three times higher than for adults.
Some years ago, NY State formed a Commission to investigate ways to improve teen safety on the roads. After much study at a high cost, it was suggested that high school students be required to take a driver education course. However, the Commission did not make it mandatory because, as they stated, it would impose a financial burden on the schools. To implement a mandatory driver-education program would mean that other extra-curricular activities would need to be curtailed; activities such as football, soccer and badminton. (I guess more teenagers die playing football, soccer and badminton than driving cars). One must conclude that teen safety is not all that important when compared to popular sports. In truth, again from personal experience, driver-education is not all that effective. Driving instruction, in general, is not of a high caliber. With driver-ed the result is worse because the student gets a senior license with full driving privileges one year earlier and exposes novice drivers earlier to a greater risk. As a matter of fact, many view driver education as counterproductive and support for it as a mandatory requirement for licensing has declined over the years.
So why do parents allow their teens to drive at such an early age? It is clear that families can benefit from teenage drivers who can transport themselves to jobs and school activities and run errands. The economic value of such activities by drivers in the 16- to 17-year age group has not been estimated, but it is clearly of substantial value to families and their teenagers.
Studies on teen driving are plentiful. In one study it was noted that 60 percent of respondents said they drive to relax and 50 percent reported driving without a destination in mind, suggesting substantial unsupervised recreational driving, which mind you, is banned by law for junior operators.
For awhile, teens behind the wheel was on a decline. It was surmised that teen unemployment was the reason. Today, according to the IIHS, teen driving is on the rise. What to do? You need to be aware that with more novice drivers on the road YOUR risk for a crash increases. Be vigilant, Don’t drive distracted, don’t drive drunk and don’t drive drowsy.
1.2 million people are killed annually, world-wide in traffic crashes. 33,000 of them occurred in the U.S. 33,000 people would represent the number of people killed if a 737 airplane fell out of the sky five days a week. So, if you ask Google (the leader in this field) why they’re developing driverless cars, that is, cars that are capable of driving from point to point without driver input they will tell you that since more than 92 percent of car crashes are due to driver error. it’s all about making driving safer. That is an argument that is open to debate.
First of all, in the near future when AVs need to be on the road with non-AVs, that is, unpredictable human drivers, traffic concerns will get a bit more complicated. According to an AAA survey, 84 percent of respondents said they would trust their own driving skills rather than technology.
Human instinct behind the wheel is invaluable. There are too many unknown variables when driving, such as, traffic congestion, weather conditions, sudden lane changes from another driver or an intoxicated driver etc. Computers are unable to act like the human mind in a time of crisis. An AV takes away a sense of responsibility, but when we drive we must be diligent and watchful of changing conditions. In an AV, being able to override autonomy is a must. Control is still a major factor in the feeling of safety.
There comes to mind the case of the Mercedes self-driving car, affectionately known as Bertha Benz. When Bertha was about to enter a highway, it recognized a car on her side radar, but what she didn’t comprehend was that an aggressive driver was not going to let her in because he apparently was engrossed in other matters. The Mercedes would have hit the brakes and come to a complete stop in the acceleration lane if the driver hadn’t intervened by stepping on the gas and swinging in behind the aggressive driver.
We have too many people getting into collisions. But, with less control on the part of the driver, training will be diminished, which means that when there are circumstances where the driver needs to take control, they won’t know enough about driving to do so. We already see this when people are not sufficiently trained to handle icy conditions, and now they won’t be able to do so in dry weather. So rather than do a better job of training and tightening licensing regulations, the trend will be relieve drivers of responsibility.
Consider the fact that human drivers instinctively act in their best interests. An AV will probably have to be programmed for the greater good – i.e. – to save the greatest number of lives in a potential crash situation. Not good for a driver alone in a vehicle where there is a potential for a crash involving multiple other vehicle occupants or pedestrians.
Another issue is that AVs ultimately depend on systems that can only be fine-tuned so much. A self-driving car knows that it has to start braking when it’s a certain distance away from another vehicle, but it doesn’t know how much tread is left on its tires, or if there’s a puddle up ahead. Too many people don’t properly maintain their vehicles when they’re the ones at the wheel, and that will probably get worse when they don’t have to think about driving.
It should also be noted that some of the scenarios AVs have the most trouble with are the scenarios human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing all-way stop signs or handling a yellow light (do you brake suddenly, or floor it and run the light)?
Another consideration is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the country’s roads are in poor condition, according to the US Department of Transportation. Without lane markings to guide it, AVs refuse to drive itself. How does a self-driving car stay in a lane with no lane markers?
Is it also too far fetched to think that driverless cars could be used to transport explosive by terrorists?
Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic crash and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage.
But, here’s the good news. Most experts say widespread use of AVs is about 10 to 15 years away. So, if you’re like me, in the third trimester of life, we will not be around to have to deal with this technology.
Some high-end cars already have self-driving technology that are forerunners to the full driverless car. They include:
Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS)- allows the wheels on a motor vehicle to maintain contact with the road surface according to driver inputs while braking, preventing the wheels from locking up (ceasing rotation) and avoiding uncontrolled skidding.
Electronic Stability Control (ESC)- Working with ABS, ESC is a computerized system that applies appropriate braking to reduce skidding and keeps the vehicle on its intended course.
Forward Collision Warning- Lasers, radar and/or cameras asses the possibility of a crash and alert the driver to brake.
Auto Emergency Braking- In some systems, if the driver doesn’t respond to the warning, the brakes will be applied automatically.
Lane Keeping Assist- If the driver fails to signal for a lane change, a mild steering input is activated to keep the car in the lane.
Adaptive Cruise Control- This automatically adjusts the car’s speed in relation to the car in front.
Rearview Back-up Cameras- provides visibility of objects such as bicycles, small children, the neighbor’s cat and other assorted hazards that can lurk behind a car.
Parking Sensors- Whether mounted in front or in the rear, these radar-based sensors detect when the vehicle approaches a hazard and issue a warning beep.
Side-view assist. If the driver doesn’t turn his head before changing lanes, sensors can detect a car in the “blind spot” and then issue an alert with a light in the side mirror or with a beep if the turn signal is engaged .
The New York Times reports:
Google, Uber, Tesla and a host of automakers have been moving at full speed to develop driverless technologies. Although the federal government has expressed support, it has so far left regulatory decisions to state and local governments.
“Paradoxically, despite a lot of cities thinking this technology is coming, very few have started to plan for it,” Mr. Mitchell said.
Last week, Anthony Foxx, the United States transportation secretary, pledged that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would help set standards for fully automated vehicles within the next six months.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg and Deputy Inspector Kevin Maloney meet at Northern Boulevard and 61st Street where an 8-year-old was struck and killed in the crosswalk while walking to school.
If you want to achieve Vision Zero, you need to take the profit motive out of crashing. There are people who go to work in the morning depending on crashes; doctors, nurses, lawyers, insurance people, tow-truck drivers, ambulance drivers, car dealers, funeral directors, florists and, yes, even driving instructors. The thing is the cities and states have a financial interest in all the transactions that flow from a crash. Read the bills presented to the legislature and at the very bottom there will be an item titled, fiscal impact. In other words, does this bill make money for the state or will it cost money?
As long as there are people who make a living from crashes, nothing will change. Vision Zero is just a feel good concept to make people think the government cares about their safety. It doesn’t! Why is it still legal to kill with a car? Why don’t the police enforce Ellie’s Law, Cooper’s Law and the new Right-of-way Law? As I see it, they don’t want to discourage drivers from crashing. They want drivers to know, that in the main, there will be no negative consequences for injuring or killing someone with your car.
Moreover, NY State as does so many others, actually encouraging crashing by telling drivers its okay to drive distracted. You doubt that statement? When the only thing banned is holding a phone and not talking on a phone, states are, in effect, encouraging distracted driving, which would hopefully lead to a crash, which in turn would enhance the Treasury. Every survey ever conducted on the subject proved that there is no difference between a hand-held phone conversation and a hands-free conversation. The conversation is the distraction!
In 2013, Jill Abramson, the former editor of the New York Times, who was hit while walking, testified at a conference of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, that “pedestrian deaths are the perfect crime….usually nothing happens not even a traffic tickets.” Manhattan DA, Cyrus Vance, Jr. declined to even attend the meeting.
At that meeting, DOT Traffic Commissioner, Polly Trottenberg, took “pride” in having traffic deaths reduced from 180 to 134. In 2014, when 36 people died from Hepatitis A it was called an epidemic. In Madagascar, when 40 people died from Bubonic Plague, it was called an epidemic. In 2009, when 49 people died from Hepatitis B, it was called an epidemic. In 1972, when 36 people died in Yugoslavia from smallpox, it was called an epidemic. But in 2016, our politicians want a pat on the back for “only” 134 deaths. Shame on them.
So there you have it. Are these the ravings of a lunatic? I think not. I’ve just been in this industry for a long time and I am dismayed that killing with a car is legal and accepted. I testified at a NYC Council hearing on this subject and told the members that I feel irrelevant. Why bother teaching people how to drive safely, if killing with a car is okay? If they wanted to be honest, the State should discard written tests, road tests, mandatory classes and just issue licenses when the fee is paid. It shouldn’t really matter if they know how to drive. Why should hitting a pedestrian be grounds for immediate failure on a road test, it it’s okay to do so once you have a license?