Multitasking at the speed of fright

David Halberstam's traffic death makes one wonder if lower speed limits would calm our frenzied streets.

Driving in San Francisco a few weeks ago, I was hit by a car going far too fast that cut into my path from the inside lane. While my wife and I watched in horror, the car fishtailed wildly in front of us, struck a median barrier head-on, made a complete 360 and ended up facing the opposite direction. Fortunately, there was a crease in the traffic, which quickly backed up. Within moments, the young driver bounced out of her car, appearing shaken but unharmed. Her radiator had burst, her windshield was shattered, and the airbags had deployed. But she was already talking on her cell phone (which we suspected may have been the real culprit). Our van suffered only cosmetic damage. We were lucky. Author David Halberstam, a journalist whose books about Vietnam and a variety of popular subjects shaped American thinking over the past four decades, and Elizabeth Duncan, a Seattle jogger, were not. Halberstam, 73, was killed in Menlo Park, Calif., when a car in which he was riding (driven by a university student) was struck broadside by another car and hit a third vehicle. Duncan, 26, was running in Seattle's Montlake neighborhood when she was hit by a car driven by a 16-year-old. Traffic accidents happen. But our trip to the Bay Area, filled with way too many close calls in addition to our collision, persuaded us that driving is becoming markedly more perilous. Cell phones, whose hand-held use will be banned while driving in Washington beginning next year, are one reason – although one wonders if talking, instant messaging, looking at photos, and other mobile-phone activities are just as culpable as holding a set to an ear. The psychology of driving also is changing. Drivers feel more comfortable going too fast these days. Automatic braking systems, computerized stability, and side-panel air bags provide an expanded margin of error and sense of security. Moreover, a generation of multitaskers is hitting the roadways, bringing with them the confidence of being able to handle phoning, drinking, eating, changing clothes, and even watching DVDs while navigating rush-hour freeway traffic. In their minds, driving has become a rote procedure akin to typing or spinning. It's often not even their top priority behind the wheel. Then there's a phenomenon that might be called "elective regulation observance." In an expansion of the infamous California rolling stop, cars approaching intersections will slow slightly, look both ways (hopefully) and then sail on through a stoplight without waiting for it to change. I've seen this and heard about it from others, enough to believe it's becoming a new social benchmark of American individualism. As we used to put it on the pickup basketball court: No blood, no foul. Add road rage, our faster pace of living and increased highway congestion to the mix, and it's small wonder that pets, joggers, bicyclists, and pedestrians seem increasingly at risk in the rushing maze of steel and wheel that metropolitan life has become. It all makes one wonder if a return to the 55 mph speed limit, which was enacted under the energy-conscious 1970s but was quickly dispatched in the 1980s, might be in order. A lower speed limit would save not only lives but millions of gallons of gasoline and avoid expelling tons of greenhouse gases. It would help calm nerves wracked by Willie the Weavers hell-bent on saving a few seconds and speeding teenagers who think of driving as just another video game. It might even return a modicum of civility to the highway arts: If you aren't in such a hurry, you can be more accommodating to your fellow automobile inmates. At a recent Ashland, Ore., appearance for her book, Slow Is Beautiful, my wife, Cecile, was told by locals how the bucolic Shakespearean burg had decided to lower its downtown speed limit by 20 percent. At first townspeople were horrified. How would they get to work on time? Wouldn't road rage explode from frustrated tourists and traffic congeal in a day-long gridlock? After a couple of weeks, though, they found themselves liking life in the slow lane. Drivers became more polite and arrived at their destinations in a better mood. "It was actually more relaxing," one Ashlander said. The speed limit, by the way, had gone from 25 to 20 miles an hour. Remember the old Gai's Bakery truck slogan: "Drive carefully – the loaf you save may be your own!" The same can be said for driving slowly. Pass it on.

About the Author

Paul Andrews is a former technology columnist for The Seattle Times and co-author of Gates, the biography of Bill. He and his wife, Cecile Andrews, founded the Phinney Ecovillage in North Seattle and are active in neighborhood and civic affairs. Andrews also serves as editorial director for Greenforgood.com, an Edmonds-based green lifestyles startup. You can e-mail him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Apr 25, 9:22 a.m. Inappropriate

Bad driving is a fact, but not for many of the reasons you cite.: First, let me give you a little context about where I'm coming from: Eleven days after I was born, Ronald Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17), giving the Central Intelligence Agency the authority to recruit and support Contra rebels in Nicaragua. I learned to read and type on a computer using "Reader Rabbit" software that you had to load from a floppy disk in DOS. I own an mp3 player, can text on my phone as fast as I can talk, and know the difference between RSS and SSL. So I suppose that makes me qualify as a member of the generation that you took a few stabs at in this piece.

Bad driving is not unique to my generation. Or any generation for that matter. Bad driving is unique to bad drivers. When I was 15 I worked at a grocery store, and part of my job was to run carts. The most dangerous part of that job was trying to navigate a train of fifteen carts through the gauntlet of minivans and SUVs looking for parking. If I were to take those specific encounters and composed an article saying that soccer moms are all bad drivers, I'd be accused of a logical fallacy. And rightly so.

But to the point of your article: a slower speed limit does not equal increased safety. With driving, speed is relative. I feel very confident driving on I5 at 75 mph so long as everyone else is driving within +/-5 mph. It is easy to anticipate what is happening because the relative speed of the cars around you is slow. The danger is the aberration: someone driving 15 mph faster OR slower. Trying to merge onto the freeway when you're stuck behind a car going 50 is one of the most dangerous and stressful situations I regularly encounter.

As to the environmental benefits that kind of snuck in: in a city where congestion and pollution due to automobiles is an issue, reducing speed limits will not help address these concerns. There can only be so many cars on the freeway at any given time. Having a faster speed limit gets that limited volume through the bottlenecks faster, clearing the way the cars that follow. This eases congestion around on-ramps and the arterials that lead up to them. Slower traffic will increase trip times and increase backups due to the fact that routes will be more clogged.

The anti-cell phone law is a good one. Enforcing traffic laws is important. Accidents do happen. But pointing to San Francisco, which is a nightmare to drive in no matter HOW fast you're driving, and my generation as the problem and lower speed limits as the solution is a weak argument and would do nothing to stop bad drivers from being particularly bad.
cwesley

Posted Wed, Apr 25, 9:42 a.m. Inappropriate

Increasing risk or increasing hysteria?: You note that it seems like the risk of getting mowed down in traffic has increased. This is not supported by the data, at least in King County. Read the "Ten-Year Trends" section of this report.

I'll bet if you did a similar study on media coverage of accidents, you'd find a huge increase.

Still, I think there are lots of measures that would reduce risk more effectively that unnaturally slow speed limits.

a) The bike plan should lower car/bike accident rates.
b) We owe it to pedestrians to either make crosswalks much more visible (e.g., blinking yellow lights), or abandon laws that give them the "right" to walk in front of moving traffic, betting their lives on drivers' reaction times.
c) The driving age in Washington should be raised to 18. Most 16 year olds are not mature enough to handle the responsibilty of driving. There's still lots of frontal lobe brain development I certainly wasn't at that age, nor were most of my friends. We were lucky we didn't kill someone.
Sean

Posted Wed, Apr 25, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate

speed: I like raising the age to 18.

Any solution shouldn't penalize pedestrians by reducing our rights.

We're severely lax in traffic enforcement, and therefore unethical people flaunt speed limits constantly. We should enforce speed laws with the same rigor we enforce laws like "don't wave a loaded gun around".

Traffic accidents kill more people than guns.

I support tighter gun control, but it's an interesting comparison.
mhays

Posted Wed, Apr 25, 12:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Halberstam, Hurry, HITCHes, High School Drivers, Cell Phone Hijinx and Hummers: The late great David Halberstam's death illustrates what happens when drivers are in a hurry. Apparently he was being driven by a student, who was in the midst of making a left-hand turn when the car was broad sided. From my experience, this suggests that likely the student was in a hurry and made the left-hand turn just as the light was changing. Similarly, the broad-siding driving was also likely in a hurry to get through the intersection as the light changed. Result: Pulitzer Prize winner's death.

The problem appears to be "people in a hurry." Let's call the result of such hurry a Hurry Induced Traffic Casualty of Hurry (i.e., HITCH and redundancy noted). If the number of HITCHes is high, then in my view the local traffic system is diseased, and Mr. Andrew's Ashland lower-speed-limit remedy as well as other "traffic calming" remedies may be in order.

Mr. Andrews experience in San Francisco highlights two other factors. One, he was in a foreign place and likely not well accustomed to the streets and driving norms there. Second, as the KC report mentioned by Sean points out, accidents are much more likely to happen on steep grades, for which SF is notorious.

Cwesley points out that slower doesn't necessarily make things safer, and that the difference in the relative speeds of cars is what causes most accidents. That's true, but remember that if on average cars are going slower, then statistically, the average relative difference should go down too, thus providing more reaction time and consequently reducing the number of accidents and their severity.

Nowadays, other people seem to drive faster. When I was younger, everyone seemed to drive too slowly. Clearly, this is a relative phenomenon related to aging. This brings up the issue of raising the driving age. The restricted driving law for young high-school-age drivers in this state has been a huge success and has saved lives. Consquently, the notion that raising the age to 18 would seem to make even more sense and save even more lives; yet the idea has two flaws.
One, drivers learn by driving. The success of the restricted driving law is related to learning while reducing the number of peer-influenced driving situations, where bad outcomes are more likely to happen. A 16-year-old high school driver is under a parent's supervision, likely driving a parent-owned car, and thus more likely to obey this law at this age, rather than at 18 when with one's own car and without parental supervision.

As for the cell phone law, I've personally had several self-inflicted cell-phone close-calls that this law would have prevented. Keeping it out of my hands will statistically prolong my life as well as others nearby. On the other hand, cell phones can be much more demanding than, for example, a water bottle. And the fact that the younger generation is good at multi-tasking would suggest lower accident rates, which Sean's cited KC report would seem to support. After all, driving itself is multi-tasking --steering, sitting, chewing gum, watching traffic, signaling -- all miraculously at the same time.

Big tank-like SUVs and Hummers embolden drivers. Because of the "impedance mismatch" of big cars to small, the bigger cars increase the likelihood of injury to others in an accident. Because of their size, these vehicles also reduce the distances between vehicles and limit visibility, thus CAUSING more accidents. Therefore, I'd support a special additional license fee on larger SUVs. (Although, probably the real reason is that I am biased and unfairly impute EVIL to Hummer drivers.)
Stuka

Posted Thu, Apr 26, 7:40 a.m. Inappropriate

A right not worth dying for: "Any solution shouldn't penalize pedestrians by reducing our rights."

It seems that our city values pedestrian rights more than it does pedestrians.

I agree with the spirit of the law, but in practice, it's a game of Russian roulette. As a pedestrian, I'm happy to wait for traffic to pass rather than trust oncoming motorists to see me in time to screech to a halt. My life is worth the waiting the extra minute. It also doesn't seem right that a pedestrian can turn any driver into a killer just because his or her reflexes happened to be a moment too slow.
Sean

Posted Thu, Apr 26, 9:41 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Halberstam, Hurry, HITCHes, High School Drivers, Cell Phone Hijinx and Hummers: ... I've personally had several self-inflicted cell-phone close-calls that this law would have prevented. Keeping it out of my hands will statistically prolong my life as well as others nearby.

Thanks for coming clean in a public forum, and congratulations on your new-found wisdom. I hope that wisdom is infectious, but I'm not optimistic about that.

I also agree that smaller vehicle size would probably be an improvement, with better visibility afforded to drivers. But it's only a small part of the big picture.

Interestingly, wikipedia cites data that indicate accident rates per vehicle-mile fell until 1990, and that rate has been flat since. What's to blame? Bigger cars, more gadgets, other? Probably all to some extent. But to me, there is only one BIG problem.

There are just too many distractions for a driver nowadays, anyway you cut it. Driving should be the art of ignoring the distractions as you negotiate traffic and its incumbent hazards. Unfortunately, driving is often an opportunity for one to show off one's multitasking skills. It used to be showoffs would only peel out from a stop light. The new trend is more insidious, and much more dangerous. Music players, phones, makeup, reading, etc can all get into the act. The list grows longer all the time.

I don't believe age should be considered a factor. Next, you will be discriminating against the elderly on the same basis. Fact is, there are good drivers and bad drivers of ALL ages. As with the old maxim regarding experience (If you haven't made any mistakes, you don't have any experience.), drivers learn from their mistakes, as they do in non-driving activities. Sadly, driving mistakes are often expensive, or even fatal.

(One thousand people per week die on our nations highways. Every week. Boggling. The US CPSC would come unglued at any other legal activity with such a statistic. And please ignore military skirmishes for now.)

It's a problem. An effective mass transit system would take more drivers off the street and make them passengers instead, but that problem will always be with us to some degree.

There is only one activity you should focus on when you are behind the wheel.

How popular do you suppose that notion is?

Posted Thu, Apr 26, 9:48 a.m. Inappropriate

Conclusion in Multitasking at the speed of fright and saving a life may be incorrect: Hi Paul Andrews:

Yes, well maybe.

Halberstam, a great man, died 1/4 mile from my office. Very sad.

It's not clear yet who was at fault. In your article you make the assumption that the car that hit Halberstam was at fault and the tragey is due to the high rate of speed of the car. The police are not saying yet. That's not the normal behavior of the friendly cops I know on the Menlo Park police force. Either Halberstam's car ran a red light or the other car did. Halberstam's car was turning left across what amounts to a freeway with a traffic light with intersects another freeway with a traffic light. So the high rate of speed of the one car could easily have been no more than the normal speed of cars on that street

I recall all the reports and accepted wisdom about Jimmy Dean's death by auto: that he was going at a super high rate of speed and was at fault because he was a mad actor. When Failure Analysis reconstructed the accident a few years ago they discovered to everyone's surprise that the gifted actor was traveling under the speed limit.

If I were to guess, probably dumb to do at this point, I would guess that Halberstam's student driver was distracted by the presense of such a great mind in the car and was discussing politics or baseball or some other topic intently, was distracted, and made a left turn too late in an area where the student was not used to driving. The car was light weight and had no side air bags. Grad students are not known for driving safe, heavy cars. A safer strategy for such a VIP visitor would be to hire a limo and a professional driver.

With such a VIP death, why have the Menlo Park cops so far stayed mum about who was at fault? There would be little incentive if the driver who hit Halberstam was at fault. Neither car need be speeding for this tragic accident to have occurred. But that's just a guess. Pure speculation at this point.

(there are good sized digital cameras covering the intersection from all angles....)
Michael Price
Menlo Park, California
mprice

Posted Thu, Apr 26, 8:24 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Conclusion in Multitasking at the speed of fright and saving a life may be incorrect: Thanks Michael, I've lived in Palo Alto four times over the past couple of decades and know Menlo well...where was the accident? I guessed El Camino when I first read about it but you seem to suggest otherwise. Beyond that, I've done enough traffic reporting to know you can't make assumptions about anything, of course. But I do think that in most (not all) cases, going slower avoids more accidents.

Posted Fri, Apr 27, 11:41 a.m. Inappropriate

Three specific comments: cwesley,

>> a slower speed limit does not equal increased safety

Actually, it does. When Interstate speed limits were lowered in the 1970s as a result of that decade's oil shock, fatality rates immediately dropped. The same is true for neighborhood speed limits, especially when motor vehicles collide with pedestrians or bicycles:

the number one factor that determines whether a pedestrian will live or die, and what kind of life will be lived by a survivor is the SPEED of the vehicle at impact.
see Speed, Injury, and Public Health Ann Rev Public Health 2206.27:125-52 doi: 10.1146.annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102225


http://www.pedinroads.org/blog

Sean,

>> You note that it seems like the risk of getting mowed down in traffic has
>> increased. This is not supported by the data, at least in King County. Read
>> the "Ten-Year Trends" section of this report.

The page you cites is for unincorporated King County only. As that same section notes, this area has been shrinking in recent years as more and more of the unincorporated (and denser) areas of the county are snapped up by neighboring cities, with the result that the unincorporated portions of the county are probably (and predictably) becoming increasingly less dense. It is no surprise, therefore, that the rate of motor vehicle collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists in those areas dropped over the period 1993-2003.

You can get a better idea of what's been happening more recently with collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists in North-Central Seattle here:

http://www.pedinroads.org/maps

To Paul Andrews,

Nice article!

Best regards,

John C. Todd, Jr.
Greater Greenwood Bi/Ped Safety Coalition

Posted Fri, Apr 27, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate

Entitling Dangerous Driving in Seattle: Reader comments are on the mark about why bad drivers are bad -- phones, feeling impregnable in the SUV, driving while eating or black-berrying. But the root cause on the streets is entitlement -- to run lights, speed, cut off other drivers, fail to yield, block the box, or tail-gate. Metro buses do it; why shouldn't everyone? Stand on the corner of 1st and University or 2nd and Union any day at any time and watch the antics. See the pedestrians alternately quail at the traffic or make a dash for safety. Watch Metro buses hurtle through the lights on red, with a small car or two close behind.

Now look for a cop. If you see one, they are likely ignoring the scene. Is there anyone left in Seattle who doesn't know someone who has been broadsided by a red light runner? I know a few and one of them is me.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »