Cell Phone Bans...The Traffic Legislation Fad Du Jour....

I originally wrote this on July 27, 2009 by request for The Mark Online, but I see now they've gone to a new format and deleted all their old content. So I'm republishing it so there's a record of "I told you so...."

Let’s face it, we all know cell phone drivers can wreak road havoc and people should not be driving while using their phones. The visual presence of a cell phone frequently makes it simple to draw conclusions regarding the cause of bad driving and today politicians are falling over themselves calling for cell phone bans for drivers. 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, than address the underlying issue(s).  

Many actions besides cell phone use produce varying degrees of poor driving, including: reading, attending to children, personal grooming, operating various electronic devices (stereos, GPS, DVDs, games), holding pets, eating, drinking, etc. ... and they 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 that mindset.   In short, driving is not taken seriously and is it any wonder that people comb their hair and text while they drive?

Yet, micro managing drivers is neither the answer nor practical. Competent drivers are in the best position to make decisions and therefore everything should be done to ensure the driver has the best education and tools to formulate decisions and act on them. Take away decisions and you lose thinking drivers and we already have enough of those. Laws should be laws to be obeyed and not designed to be 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 neither be obeyed, nor will they be practical 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 what is the logical next step, for cell phone users to avoid a ticket? It might simply be to hide the phone in a less visible place. The most obvious place is out of sight, which 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.

According to a recent British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA) poll, while almost 60% agreed cell phone use should be restricted, nearly 50% admitted using while driving. So unless many respondents to BCAA’s poll are not drivers (a statistically unreliable poll by BCAA’s own admission) 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 BC government recently published a discussion paper describing the types of research being relied upon and it refers to three which involve:  observation, data using correlations, and experimental.  While the first two types provide some information about contributing factors, they show correlation and not causation. Looking at it another way, the victim was breathing when he died, therefore breathing was a contributing factor in his death. 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, 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 and texting.  Cell phone distraction is a symptom of a greater problem that police and safety advocates should instead be addressing with effective public relations and existing enforcement tools.

Wreck Beach, RCMP and Hypocrisy

The UBC RCMP detachment's decision to place a tent, at Wreck Beach, full time for several hours a day is both unacceptable and dumb. However, some beach goers (maybe with the blessing of the Wreck Beach Preservation Society) have decided to circulate a petition demanding the RCMP remove the proposed tent ... and some other things. Also dumb. I'll get to that later.

Let's start with the UBC RCMP. As a long time resident of Vancouver, a nearby the beach resident, and someone who has both observed and appreciated the uniqueness of that beach over time; one can only shake a head in disbelief at an action that will both infuriate those who value the beach, and which will prove to be a PR blunder for the UBC RCMP detachment... and maybe even the RCMP as an organization.

What makes this particular beach like no other in the Lower Mainland, is both its natural beauty and atmosphere. The natural beauty is under constant attack from pollution and development, however it's atmosphere is also threatened by the presence of armed and uniformed individuals.

That's where both the RCMP and GVRD come in. Why is it necessary for two administrations to be patrolling the beach all the time? Especially THAT beach? Why do the RCMP need to spend so much time there?  Why is it acceptable to have an enforced CURFEW on Wreck every night at sunset, for that matter, on any beach, in a first world, supposedly free country? Why does the Coast Guard Hovercraft show up every time someone stubs their toe on that beach? We'll leave the follow the money discussion regarding UBC development and politics for another day.

Let's just say the battle over Wreck Beach and who has the right to use it, was won decades ago. It's a clothing optional beach and therefore attracts a particular demographic. Some, it seems, just can't get over it.

Among other things, providing law enforcement is a matter of prioritizing. It's doubtful that too many users of that beach support the level of attention by police to the degree it has been; let alone setting up virtually a full time presence there for several hours a day. In fact I doubt anybody supports it - well except for at least one Sgt. at the UBC RCMP detachment.

MLA Harry Bains was on the radio this week lamenting lack of RCMP manpower for serious crime in Surrey. There are serious crimes, including the murder of Wendy Ladner-Beaudry which took place in UBC RCMP's jurisdiction, that remain unsolved. Given that, unwanted and unnecessary presence in a location that is essentially self - policing looks bad for the RCMP and its members.

An action like this can only add fuel to the fire for those who will question RCMP priorities and  inevitably (and rightfully) ask " have the RCMP nothing better to do?". Good question.  Someone might also ask UBC this question.

Few are unaware of what goes on down at that beach. Nothing's changed, and nothing will change... except this week, some Sgt. in charge of an RCMP detachment at UBC has chosen to draw the line in the sand.

The result of this action will be upset beach goers, bad media publicity and yet again more public attention to the bad management and misallocation of police / taxpayer resources by the RCMP.

Like I said, unacceptable and dumb.

As far as the beach goers go; one should never assume the so called free spirits down at Wreck, are above their own form of controlling hypocrisy. Underneath the petition’s first line demand to oust the cops, are seven points, including the demand to have the VPD Harbour Patrol oust the boaters and jet skis... among other things.

This is a dumb move, as anybody in the advocacy world should know.  The cops' presence on Wreck is a galvanizing issue, and it’s an issue that could consolidate support from beach users; in the same way that UBC development above the beach did for the Wreck Beach Preservation Society (WBPS).

However, every time you throw another issue or rule in there, you can count on diluting your support.

Boaters can be annoying,  some jet skis are noisy (some are smoky), dogs off leash can be frustrating; however, I believe nudists are generally libertarians (although not all libertarians are nudists). But one thing is for sure, and it’s they do not like rules. Although boaters have lots of rules to follow (for safety's sake) there are lots of libertarians who are boaters. So not only is it hypocritical for the beach goers and WBPS to be declaring war on boaters, but it's also dumb if they want support for their cause(s).

Notwithstanding the WBPS's eco and socio political bias (somehow the use of boats, for some, is directly correlated to Harper and big oil), the explanation for the need to remove boaters (among others) given to me yesterday, by a petitioner, was that some of the "psychedelic drugs are a bit different these days and the buzzing from the jet skis produces a negative vibe".

I'm serious.

WBPS claims it's all about safety. OK, show me... I'll believe it when I see it.

All of this reminds me of a story: Years ago, I was at the beach asleep and I was wakened by a woman beach behind me arguing with a man about her unleashed dog. The man was berating her for bringing a dog to the beach and he told her she had no right to have a dog there without a leash or even have a dog there in the first place. Her response to him was "Wrong beach Dude!". I was semiconscious by then, but paying attention to the conversation and thinking to myself "yeah she's right; stupid rules about dogs not being on a leash anyway. I love dogs", and returned to sleep in the hot sun. 

10 minutes later the dog was standing over me, having been for a swim and in the sand, shaking water and dirt all over me from head to toe. 

Believe me I saw the irony that, not ten minutes earlier, I was on the side of the dog and owner and that I was now being seriously inconvenienced.

You know what? I reminded myself what I love so much about that beach.... and I was fine with it.