MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I recently spent some time driving across a good portion of this fine country and as one might expect I saw a number of maneuvers on our nation's highways that would lead one to conclude we are a nation of idiots. Or at least a nation that has a good number of idiots. Actually I would have more choice words for these folks. And one of the most glaring examples I experienced occurred on I-15 between Salt Lake and Provo, which is currently under serious construction.
Like most of these incidents of idiocy, the I-15 idiocy revolved around a group of cars wanting to go faster than another group of cars. The latter group, of which I belong, is usually attempting to drive at or near the speed limit, whereas the former group is seeking to move down the road at speeds 10, 15 or 20 miles per hour faster than the posted limit.
If you happen to be one of the former group, who in whipping passed one of those slower vehicles, sees the driver of the slower vehicle (doing the speed limit, especially in a construction zone) flip you off, you might have passed by me. In many cases I would like to do more than just flip you off, especially when as I experienced on I-15 that day, vehicles zipping right up to my bumper, in what I can only imagine is some pathetic attempt to get me to join their speed, and once realizing that I won't, whipping aggressively into the next lane and then right in front of me as if I was being the asshat.
Let me remind everyone of those folks that cars are a deadly weapon. Tons of metal plastic and such traveling at high speeds. In situations like an afternoon on 1-15, where all three lanes are filled with vehicles, it only takes one car to set off a chain reaction that can lead to the death and maiming of not just yourself. You might as well be walking into a crowded room waving a loaded automatic weapon (and then getting upset with those who take issue with such a waving of a gun in a crowded room).
As I dealt with the speeding asshats in everything from semis to minivans with children on board, I was quite aware I was in Utah - one of the most conservative states in the country and, yes, the center of power of the Church of Latter Day Saints.
This was connected in my mind with one of my favorite history teachers. He was a conservative Mormon, with whom I disagreed on just about every issue when it came down to opinion. Yet by the time I ended his class, I had more respect for him than just about any professor before or since. His was one of the first courses I took in college and he spent most of his modern world history course attempting to drive home the notion that one is entitled to one's opinion, but not one's own set of facts. And something like one's religious beliefs, no matter how strongly one believes them, are, in the end from a historical analysis, an opinion.
And one of the little tidbits of insight he said that has always stuck with me was the greatest variable in traffic accidents was not the speed of traffic, but the degree of speed differential between the cars. At the time I was taking the course, the enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit nationwide was an on-going controversy. Proponents cited the safety issue of having a lower speed limit.
As the professor pointed out (as part of the not-entitled-to-one's-set-of-facts), people driving 75 mph was not any more dangerous than people driving 55 mph. The problem was when the speed limit was 75 mph, one had those doing 85 mph and those doing 65 mph, as opposed to a 55 mph speed limit where the range between speeds was much lower.
So as I drove down the 1-15 corridor, attempting to drive the posted speed limit through the construction zone - 55 mph - and having people speed by - the majority of the drivers it seemed at speeds in excess of 65 mph - it was this issue of speed deferential that was coming to my mind. If everyone accepted they weren't going to get to go 70 mph on this day and kept to the posted speed limit, we all had a greater chance of getting through it with our lives.
But apparently the law and order conservatives (and yes devout Mormons) of Utah don't care about that. They would rather speed through a construction zone and put their children at risk of life, put my life at risk in order to save a few minutes of travel time.
I can of course write the same about the liberal areas of this country. It would seem the one area of common ground the nation can find is that putting lives at risk in order to get where we are going a few minutes faster is more than acceptable behavior. Believing the right of citizenship includes being an asshat on our nation's roadways is about as bipartisan as it gets. It would seem at times to be the fundamental defining feature of what it means to be American.
Well, in my opinion, if you want a purity test for being a liberal it would start with how sane one chooses to drive. I don't care what kind of liberal bumper stickers one has if it is on a car driving recklessly - and that means weaving and whipping through congested traffic or riding on someone's tail going down through some mountain curves or you name it.
What I want to know is where do the candidates stand on enforcing the laws of our road and the reckless behavior of our citizens. If we are going to be getting into the cultural issues - this is the issue we need to be addressing head on.
Comments
Tailgating is stupid and dangerous--no argument. But driving 10 miles over the limit? I'm not sure where you usually drive, but in my experience, those driving at the speed limit or below are often in the minority. By the differential argument you present, wouldn't that make you the dangerous maniac?
But I'm more curious about something else. Generally speaking, a car would only tailgate and then impatiently zoom around you if you were driving at your speed limit pace in the left lane. That's why these cars are zipping right up to your bumper. They're not trying to encourage to go faster. They're sending you a message: "Move over, asshat!"
Now that is certainly a stupid and dangerous way to send a message, but if you're ignoring the convention of driving in the right lane because of some self-righteous belief that no one should be driving faster than you, then you are in fact being an asshat. Worse, you're creating a hazard by forcing faster cars to pass on the right, which is one of the more dangerous things one can do on the highway.
In short, feel free to take your drive-the-speed limit crusade to the blogosphere, but don't try to enforce it on the road. To do so is to incite hostile grudge matches that make the roads more dangerous for all of us.
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 4:32pm
Using the I-15 situation, there were three lanes. I was on the far right lane. People who wanted to take the next exit or so were coming up behind. Because the traffic was so heavy, they needed to get over well before the exit. Then they get stuck behind me. Impatient they go for zipping around so they can make their exit. All this to save maybe 15 seconds or so.
Also staying with the I-15 example, even if I was in the left lane - it was a construction zone. If I was doing the posted limit, I was doing so with the construction workers in mind, not to mention the other drivers who could get caught up in an accident, given the narrowed lanes and construction going on.
One of my implied points would be if someone came up behind me in such a situation who believed they were entitled to go over the speed limit simply because they are the far left lane is what is wrong.
If it bumper to bumper traffic in all three lanes, then the situation doesn't warrant allowing some to exceed the speed limit. If there are few cars, then slower traffic goes to the right and those on the left side can speed up as the situation allows.
Not all traffic situations are the same. So going 10 mph over the speed limit is okay in some situations. But not in others.
The logic here is that if the majority decide to break the law, then those in the wrong culturally are those that decide to obey the law? Does this logic only apply to situations of moving metal and plastic at high speeds or does this apply to all laws?
In the end, you are claiming that those who choose to set their own speed limit regardless of the conditions (traffic congestion, weather) are in the right. Regardless of what else you may be, you are a road libertarian. You are blaming the person who causes a speedster to feel hostile rather than the person who feels hostile because they are being denied to drive however they choose regardless of laws and conditions. This is exactly what is wrong with this country culturally when it comes to the situation out there on the roads.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 5:33pm
If you were in the right lane, then you were no asshat. But yes, I do blame asshats who flout driving convention and courtesy and also reckless tailgating asshats.
And no, I don't particularly care about people driving 10 mph over the limit. I even confess to doing it myself. Sometimes even 15 mph (gasp!) Does that make me a driving libertarian? Maybe I should join the Tea Parties.
PS "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" -- George Carlin
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 6:31pm
The only reason it's bumper to bumper in three lanes as opposed to bumper to bumper in two; ....is because the ass hats aren't satisfied with taking up two lanes, they need three in order to screw everyone else.
A test
The person behind you, is flashing his lights, he's tailgating you, he's flipping you off .
What ever should you do?
Remember the slogan "slower traffic keep to the left or do you say to yourself; their is no sign saying SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE LEFT, so its my right to be an asshat?
Never mind that citizens are not allowed the Right to turn on the sirens for perceived emergencies.
The dreaded emergency call; moms fallen or had a stroke and shes critical. You'd sure like to get to the hospital to comfort her ,before her expiration; except a group of asshat drivers want to take up all three lanes, and allow no one to pass.
Thinking to themselves "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you" They don't need to flip others off, they just know, they dont need to tell you to F off they'll just F with you, by driving slower.
"Sorry to hear about your mom; but the law is the law and we'll make sure you observe it"
by Resistance on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:18pm
Slower traffic should keep to the right, not the left. I think a big part of the problem with our roads is that too may people don't even know the laws of the road that they think others aren't following correctly.
No one on this blog is advocating the behavior you're attributing to them, by the way. We're advocating following the law, not being an asshat. If I'm following the law and keeping to the right (not the left), what right do you have to get mad at me?
I thought you were about doing the right thing, and not just the expedient thing.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:33pm
Republicans, teabaggers and many here at Dag think cameras and radar used to reduce speeding are illegal and unconstitutional, ergo, the drives to eliminate both across the country. They don't think a piece of technology can ticket them, only a uniformed cop can do that in person. Many seem to believe any enforcement of speed limits creates more hazard, or is pointless, like gun control.
At the same time they cut police forces so that most cops are busy responding to accidents rather than enforcing any highway laws. Just in case there are cameras out there, they get the plastic reflectors to cover over their license plates to deter photography, so they can break the law, while in different venues they are bellyaching about illegals not following the law.
True speed differential is demonstrated when one of these idiots drives at speed, into a concrete abutment, usually with no seat belt.
by NCD on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 4:54pm
I have don't any research on the issue, but from what I've heard from those caught, it is the vehicle being ticketed not the driver, since who was driving cannot be proven.
It is a stretch in my opinion to make some kind of constitutional argument against these devises. If a police officer looks at a radar gun and then pulls the driver over a gives a ticket is really no different than someone looking at a monitor and seeing the same vehicle speeding and giving a ticket through the mail. In neither case can an individual fight the ticket. In both cases, one would have to go to court to argue.
It really is people being upset about not being able to drive over the speed limit, but trying to disguise it with some fancy dancy legal talk.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 5:41pm
What would Mitt do? He'd let Seamus drive, next time.
by LisB on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 12:30am
Seriously, though...I have always been a lead-foot, and was quite bad about tail-gating. But over the years I've come to learn it's not worth it. Those few seconds/minutes we might gain, in going over the limit, are not worth it, when it comes to safety. As you said, we are operating a machine. We are solely in charge of a big piece of metal (or, in my Saturn's case, plastic) that is hurdling through space and time faster than most animals can run.
I give trucks a lot of respect. I stay in the right lane except to pass. I constantly watch my rearview mirrors and sideview mirrors in order to gauge what's around me. I maintain a steady speed about 5MPH above the posted limit (okay, sometimes 7MPH) and when I'm about to fiddle with my radio or light a cig, I deliberately move to the farthest right lane and put distance between myself and any other driver.
All that being said, I'm still left wondering if this latest blog post is a metaphor, or not.
by LisB on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 12:40am
Okay, I'll keep going....
My ex-bf drove a big Chevy 4x4 pick-up, with back seats. He thought nothing of driving from San Jose to Sacramento in the left lane of every highway, going about 90MPH. When, by chance, we'd come upon some driver going 55 in the left lane, my ex had no mercy. NONE. I can't tell you how many times my fingernails dug into the seat below my right thigh (I had to panic there and there alone, because if I mistakenly moved my right foot to the phantom brake pedal on the passenger side, he'd see it, and argue).
My ex-bf felt that the road was his, and only HE knew how to drive. If construction was going on, or if a truck was pulled over on the right shoulder due to a problem, my ex-bf didn't care. The road was his, and pity the fool who got in his way.
I pity the fool that my ex-bf is...or was.
Road rage, speeding...these are things that kill people.
So, yeah, I drive about 5mph to 7 mph above the posted speed limit most of the time, but I'm cognizant of the dangers and I am a very careful driver. I'm also happy to be alive.
As I hope you are.
by LisB on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 1:00am
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 4:59am
"Travis McGee" author John D MacDonald also put forth the idea that everyone driving around the same speed was safer than any particular speed, and that a few dissenters trying to go faster or slower than everyone else caused the problems.
I found it interesting to drive out West on a visit in the late 1990s. We drove on highways between Cheyenne, Casper, Billings, etc. The speed limits were much higher than here in the East. Some areas were 90 mph, and Montana had no daytime speed limit. Driving was a pleasure. Why? Because instead of a gaggle of people driving 0 to 15 mph above the speed limit, everyone drove their own speed. I'd pass someone going 70, and they didn't speed up to block me or latch on my tail to let me get the ticket first. They knew that if I was going 80, I'd keep going 80 no matter what they did. And if some guy passed me at 90, I didn't bother to try to keep up with him because 80 was fast enough. Best of all, no one pulled in front of me and slowed down. I really hate that. Later they reinstituted speed limits to get matching federal funding.
I believe that they could easily control traffic speed here in the East if it was known that concealed cameras could be anywhere, but that it wouldn't be as profitable as generally letting people speed and placing gotcha cameras in a few places.
by Donal on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 9:51am
That no speed limit law is no longer in existence in Montana, the speed limit is now 75 at night it is 65. The law was called "what is prudent for the conditions of the road". But too many people took it to the max and would drive over 85, which has always been a reckless driving ticket in Montana.
The thing about Montana that is different Donal is that there is no one driving. I mean there are only 700,000 people in the entire state. When I go home driving is a pleasure it is awesome and drivers are damn nice and polite. It's different because you are driving in wide-open-spaces. In some places you might see one or two cars in 100 miles.
Our speed limit here in town is 60 in some places and 55 in others, and outside of the cities it is 70, once you get in to Easter WA it is much like Montana, there is no one out there driving so it is pretty nice.
There isn't much time to get up to 70 out here on the coast, cause now there are just too many drivers, but I always drive between 65-70 when I can so I can get out of the damn car! I hate driving in the city and prefer the ferry, my bicycle and my scooter. Highways are a pain in cities, everyone follows their own rules. It's always going to be that way.
Edited to add this: In the 80's when the Reagan trans dept had the 55 mph, the night speed limit is and always was 65 mph and it remained through those years, in order to maintain the federal funding of highways. When that day limit was lifted, and they had the free for all, they changed it because there were too many challenges to the reckless tickets for people traveling over 85. It clogged up the courts with too many challenges. Which challengers mostly lost because the court would site, condition of tires etc. But Safe and Prudent was too loose, they needed to reduce traffic court time, it was costing the state too much.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 11:08am
New Mexico, where I'm from, moved up to a 65 mile an hour speed limit near cities, 55 within cities and 75 in the great beyond. I think a lot of laws (including and kind of especially, gun laws) should be made based on population density. A lot of things that are fine in New Mexico are just terrible ideas in Manhattan. Doesn't mean they're "bad things," just that everything needs a context.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 1:56pm
I motorcycled across Texas in the late '60s. The roadsigns read, "Any safe speed."
What a sensible state, I thought. Of course, you could also drive with an open six-pack. Don't try that on a bike, folks.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 10:58pm
Trope.
You need a faster goddamn car.
However. Avoid the Facel-Vega.
by Q (not verified) on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 7:59pm
Is this what all the liberals are driving?
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:01pm
Well don't drive I95 and don't flip people off in Florida, they have guns in their vehicles.
by cmaukonen on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 8:32pm
And they know how to use them. The guns, not the vehicles.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/18/2012 - 10:54pm
by Richard Day on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:50pm
HA! I think about this routine a lot of time when I'm driving. Maybe I'm so persnickety about the laws of the road, but if I start to let my thoughts drift toward doing what I want to do....
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:00pm
It's terrible isn't it?
I have crossed this great land 40 times? by car in the old days!
I learned to stay the hell out of the Rockies. I mean I almost died five different times I can remember. I mean you take a curve and where it was a bright sunny day it was night!
I stayed in the right lane, I attempted to be agreeable.
There are nuts out there. There are nuts out there will real power.
And Bill Burr informs us of the potential problems with our id but he reminds us that we had better stick with our superego. hahahahahaha
by Richard Day on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:07pm