Valentine's Day...Just Say No!

Nothing quite captures the essence of what’s wrong with modern romance than Valentine’s Day. Men emasculate themselves, while encouraging and enabling a sense of female entitlement, with the purchase of overpriced cards, flowers, dinners and other assorted trinkets. By the same token women often find themselves measuring their own worth, as they do with engagement rings, by comparing the dollar value of their haul with their friends and colleagues. It is a day which, roughly four decades after women’s liberation and feminism emerged, should be boycotted by all self respecting men who truly believe in women’s equality and who don’t need to beg for sex. More important, women who value both their own self esteem and the concept of unsolicited affection and romance, need to give this sordid hallmark moment a big miss.

It may come as a surprise to many women, and some men for that matter, that men don’t buy gifts on VD (an appropriate acronym) because they want to, rather they do it because (perhaps mistakenly) they believe women expect it. And nothing takes away the pleasure of doing something for another person, and says “forced romance” more than thinking generosity is expected. Media personality and author Marc Rudov conducted an informal poll a few years ago where he asked men and women “If you will buy your mate a Valentine’s Day gift, is it out of pure desire or a feeling of obligation? Men felt obligated over desirous by a factor of 2 and women felt desirous over obligated by a factor of nearly 4 times. Rudov’s conclusion was that men dread Valentine’s Day while women love it because as he wrote, “It’s simple: men are obligated and women are not... It’s a luxurious pleasure for a woman to give when there is no pressure for her to give, when there is no expectation for her to give.

Rudov calls chivalry “benevolent sexism” or “BS” for short and calls it phony romance. Speaking of BS, there have been lots of books written lately lamenting the shortage of good men with tips on how to find and keep the good ones. How ironic is it that men are in short supply and yet BS is expected from men instead of women? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The pricing of commodities is dictated by the law of supply and demand, meaning that if a commodity is in short supply (healthy men with no addictions, straight white teeth, who walk upright) the price goes up. Vancouver is laughable when you consider that women still behave as if they are offering a scarce commodity when in fact, the opposite is true. Valentine’s Day is the epitome of legal prostitution and the stupidity of it is that there is no reason for it.

Notwithstanding the above, there are lots of women who don’t like VD. In fact, February 14th is really a miserable day for both genders, single or attached. If you want proof, go to any restaurant on that evening and check out the uncomfortable tie-wearing, crestfallen, suited up guys looking like beaten dogs. It is a safe assumption they would sooner be anywhere else but that table. By the same token watch for small groups of women out together. They are miserable, because they have not been invited on a date yet they feel duty bound to go out anyway. By the way boys, I am sure it does not need to be mentioned that women, out with their girlfriends on Valentine’s Day, make the easiest marks. Why? Because it is the moment in time when their self esteem is ebbing at an all time low. As radio personality Tom Leykis has suggested, surely as a man if you possess a pulse, you will get them to do unspeakable things they will inevitably regret afterward. Very good indeed.

Nobody is better off for Valentine’s Day other than the retailers. Do yourselves a favour and get lost on Valentine’s Day.

This blog is copyright Ian Tootill 2009 to 2013. All rights reserved. No unauthorized reproduction in whole or in part without permission.

The Cell Phone Ban....How's it Workin' For Ya?

Last night I spent a frustrating five minutes behind a driver who must have been paid by the hour. When it was finally safe to pass him, sure enough he was on his cell phone, despite the fact that BC has now joined many other jurisdictions in passing legislation to ban hand held device usage. As a friend of mine recently said, "I am sure glad they banned cell phones because now everybody will have their hands free for a cigarette and coffee."

What's the problem on the roads in North America really? I suspect, but cannot prove it, that driving has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Although people have a natural inclination to get from A to B as quickly and safely as possible, and perform tasks efficiently, they have been lulled into a sense of complacency on the roads and therefore have lost their fear. A good dose of fear is what is necessary to keep ones' wits. However,fear is absent in BC where driving the speed limit on the Coquihalla Highway will put you to sleep. Below is a copy of my July 2009 essay written for The Mark online available at http://www.themarknews.com/articles?search=ian+tootill

It’s true, cell phone drivers can wreak road havoc and people should not be driving while using their phones. However, cell phones are not nearly the only or the most prevalent cause of bad driving. Politicians are falling over themselves calling for cell phone bans for drivers, but are they missing a bigger problem in the process?

Although outlawing the weapon may seem sensible, it is the traffic safety fad du jour, and will do little more than create a perception of improved safety.

Many actions besides cell phone use cause varying degrees of poor driving. This list includes reading, attending to children, personal grooming, operating various electronic devices, holding pets, eating, drinking, etc. These are all symptoms of a driving style that promotes cognitive distraction.

North American driving culture is for the most part sloppy. It is characterized by big vehicles with soft rides, creature comforts, cruise control, and space ... lots of space. Highway speed limits across Canada are set to recognize and include the skills of the lowest common denominator and the condition of the largest and worst vehicles. In turn, speed limits are routinely ignored.

Many drivers see it as perfectly OK to impede traffic on a highway by occupying a left lane, or on city streets by double-parking while engaging in casual conversation. North American consumers and governments alike have embraced this mindset.

In short, driving is not taken seriously. Is it any wonder that people comb their hair and text while they drive?

But attempting to micro-manage drivers is not the answer. Instead, we should empower competent drivers to make better decisions. Where possible, we should be educating, not legislating. Take away decisions and you lose thinking drivers, of which there is already a dearth.

Laws should be designed to be obeyed, not ignored. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its Speed Zoning Information circular says that “laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and compliance of the public majority.” Laws banning cell phones will not be obeyed, and will be impractical to enforce.

The unintended consequences of a ban are likely to be dangerous. For example, in California, simply the act of holding a cell phone will net the driver a ticket and fine. So how do cell phone drivers avoid a ticket? They hide the phone in a less visible place. This will result in more danger than currently exists as the driver must shift both vision and focus.

Another unintended consequence will be merging or rear-end crashes resulting from drivers stopping or pulling over unexpectedly for an important call, causing a sharp interruption in traffic flow. Speed variance is a known cause of crashes, more so than speed itself.

According to a recent British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA) poll, while almost 60 per cent agreed cell phone use should be restricted, nearly 50 per cent admitted to using their phone while driving. So unless many of the respondents to the poll were not drivers there exists a significant number who believe they are, or will be, above the law.

In any event, the case for a ban should be supported by more than anecdotal or circumstantial evidence showing usage and crash correlation.

The B.C. government recently published a discussion paper describing the types of research being used: observation, data using correlations, and experimental. While the first two types provide some information about contributing factors, they show correlation and not causation. The third type of study is far more engaging, but the results lead to the conclusion that the overall problem of distraction is what needs addressing.

Governments need to take the lead. They should minimize the causes of cognitive distraction and promote the safe and efficient movement of goods and people through education. The laws are already in place to punish drivers who transgress.

Driving without due care and attention should be enforced and applied to many things besides cell phone use. Cell phone distraction is merely a symptom of a greater problem that police and safety advocates should be addressing with effective public relations and existing enforcement tools.

Realistic Speed Limits Prevented by BC Politics

The Vancouver Sun originally posted this in May 2009 (I am the author), however it is gone now. Currently the BC Solicitor General is considering the merits of "Keep Right Except to Pass" so I thought a good idea to republish....

In 1996, 25,000 names were gathered in British Columbia for a petition calling for the removal of photo radar and an independent review of speed limits. The review was completed in 2002 and it revealed what most drivers already knew; that limits on some B.C. highways are set incorrectly, mostly too low.
Over the past 20 years, the B.C. population has increased by more than 30 per cent and roadways have been busier than ever thanks to a recently robust economy. Despite this, we have enjoyed a reduction in crash-related fatalities of nearly 40 per cent from a peak in 1990 -- more cars, more trips, and fewer deaths.

Yet the shrill cries of "Speed Is Killing Us" are still heard. Ironically, the enforcement emphasis during the past six years, during a period of dramatic economic growth and road use, has been rightly redirected toward offences with a higher correlation, to at-fault crashes rather than speeding.

The RCMP now issues about 250,000 tickets per year for speeding, less than half issued during the peak of photo radar. If proponents of more speed enforcement were correct, there should have been a noticeable increase in fatalities during this time. It has not happened just as it did not happen in the United States subsequent to the 1996 removal, despite intense lobbying of special interests, of the federally mandated 55-m.p.h. limit.

The RCMP leadership in B.C. can be given credit for implementing a new philosophy of targeted enforcement which has produced real improvements in highway safety, moving from speed traps to crash black spots. However, the baseline -- the law -- remains flawed.

Laws must be set with the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority in mind, and there is no value in legislation that there is neither the will nor the means to enforce. Anything to the contrary and the door opens for arbitrary abuse, as is the case with photo radar.

If a particular limit is routinely and safely disobeyed by the reasonable majority, it can hardly be called valid. Incorrectly set speed limits are a guarantee of non-compliance, necessitate more police for enforcement, are expensive for motorists (increased fines and insurance), reduce road capacity and efficiency, increase disrespect for laws in general, and can even embarrass politicians whose actions are not consistent with the laws they oversee.

So why then, did the Ministry of Transportation refuse to implement the recommendations in the report it commissioned? Further, why spend taxpayer money in the first place, if there were no plans to act on it? Answer: Politics.

Judith Reid, then minister of transportation and highways, told me during a 2003 meeting that the optics of raising speed limits were bad. Nobody wanted to be the minister during a crash fatality on a road with a higher speed limit -- especially after the public had been bombarded for several years with ICBC's "Speed Is Killing Us" propaganda. Additionally, the change needed to be approved by then solicitor-general Rich Coleman, and that was not going to happen.

An odd thing occurs with the subject of speeding; few drivers see themselves as speeders. While many gasp at tickets for 40 km/h over the posted speed, few connect the dots and realize that most drivers are technically speeding when conditions are good. So if the legal speed limit on a highway is 90 km/h and 85 per cent of the drivers are travelling 110 or 115, the question should be: Are they travelling excessively over the safe speed for conditions? In B.C., the answer is often no.

Highway safety requires two key ingredients: minimal speed variance and reduced traffic volume. Increasing highway capacity and design speed is one way the government reduces volume, but danger increases when vehicles impede others.

A much-needed improvement in B.C. is "Keep Right Except To Pass" legislation allowing police to enforce signage recently placed on highways to enhance safety, by reducing both vehicle interactions and speed variance, HOV lanes included. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends setting speed limits based upon an upper limit (85th percentile) of free-flow vehicle speeds.

Drivers naturally comply with limits viewed as reasonable, thus reducing speed variance and potential interactions between vehicles. Everybody wins; scofflaws are fewer and easy to apprehend, drivers are safer and politicians need not fear their driving records.

Send Money Where It's Needed?

A letter appeared today in The Vancouver Sun from Dr. Tom Perry as follows:

"Is it ethical to proceed with spending more than $1 billion on security for the "Olympic family" or should we divert at least some of those dollars, police and military personnel and health workers to Haiti, where they could really make us proud to be Canadians?
I volunteer my share of Olympic tax dollars for Haiti, instead of Whistler. How about it, Prime Minister Harper and Premier Campbell?"

Dr. Perry is the former socialist Vancouver MLA that brought us the bicycle helmet law among other NDP annoyances. In his letter he can be seen arguing for the freedom to choose however, judging by his letter and past intrusive (albeit unenforceable) legislation, dictating how we dress to ride our bicycles, he clearly does not support freedom to choose for others beside himself.

You see the questions he should really be asking in his letter are: "Is it ethical to confiscate tax dollars to pay for a party?". Or, "Is it ethical to ask only Vancouver citizens in a vote whether they want the Olympics, only to go ahead and proceed anyway while expecting the rest of BC and Canada to pay?" Or maybe, "Is it ethical to confiscate money to pay for discretionary events, thereby reducing money available to devote to more important events... like helping the people of Haiti?".

He does not ask the above, rather he wants Canadians and BC'ers to divert his tax dollars being spent on the Olympics security to be spent in Haiti instead.

I don't get it. Presumably in the eyes of anti choice tax and spenders like Dr. Perry, Olympics security is a discretionary expense and not one of necessity.

Wrong...unless complete incompetence reigns over those responsible for Olympic security budgeting (admittedly a distinct possibility) and we have been misled, security is not discretionary.

However, the Olympics themselves were discretionary and if taxes were only imposed strictly for necessity, Dr. Perry and the rest of us would not have to pay for the Olympics. Therefore redirecting taxes from security would be a moot point and the Dr. would be free to take his money and send it where ever he wants. I wonder if he voted yes for the Olympics?

Ironically the outcome, of this "no choice" discretionary spending for a party which has been imposed on Dr. Perry and everybody else, has been and will be less choice in both where and how we spend money.

Haiti should be a wake up call in defining discretionary vs necessary.