Here I am, riding along on my professional quest for ambulances, and listening to the radio. Suddenly, I hear a commercial. It is one apparently paid for by VRE, which stands for Virginia Railway Express [or something similar]. It is a male voice. He seems to be attempting a "hip" style of persuasion. I thought he sounded altogether "jive-turkey."
His pitch was that commuters who drove to the Washington Metro area for work from such relatively distant points as Fredericksburg, VA, would be wise to use the VRE service. He assures them that they could "read a newspaper," check their email, read a book, ogle the shapely chick just across the way, snooze, plan the day, or week, or year, or vacation, and so forth. He seems to be "pitching" quality time. The implication is that the commuters' travel would be quick and carefree, as opposed to the crawling torture of I95.
One never hears anything about "strangers on a train," nor insane bands of mujahideen running amok in the train, nor anything about "train jumps track" and crashes, nor anything about one's train being "rear-ended" by another train, nor, indeed, someone "puking" on you while you are trying to enjoy quality time. Emphasize the positive! That's the selling point.
The commercial ends with the pitchman saying: Car bad; VRE good.
Is this truth in packaging? I don't think so. It does indicate that politicians are working hard to end the era of the car. What comes next, after communal commuting? Kibbutz?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
BOGUS RADIO ANALYSIS
Today, I was out driving , listening for the sounds of ambulances, police cars, and/or firetrucks, and listening to the "breaking news, traffic and weather" station. As it happened, there were radio-equivalent "talking heads" in colloquy, running through one of their obnoxious scripts on the subject of traffic and highway dangers. In these formats the "enemy" (other than cars, per se) is speed. The general thrust of their comments was that a return to a speed limit of 55 miles per hour on the highway was needed. The concluding view was that legislation was needed to put "teeth" in the matter.
To help usher in professional support, a trucking organization was cited, noting that truck drivers are fully in support of a 55 mile an hour limit. [Anyone who spends any time on the highways knows that truckers get their "big dogs" rolling 90 miles an hour, whenever the road shows some space.] They go slow at such notorious jam-spots as I95-I495 around Washington, D.C., due to the necessity. Nevertheless, these "pros" regularly get their rigs stuck under overpasses, which are clearly marked in regard to height tolerances. They also regularly "tip over" going up or down ramps. They also regularly "jack-knife" on these main arteries. For these pros other people are typically to blame. [It is part and parcel of the uniform "it's not my fault" syndrome in America. This syndrome gave birth to "no-fault" insurance.]
Folks, it is dangerous out there, but speed is not the issue; reckless driving and falling asleep at the wheel tend to be the main culprits. For sure, the Washington, D.C., area has a horde of dangerously foolish drivers, tail-gating and "cutting off" being considered normal by a significant percent of the drivers. High-speed weaving in semi-conjested roadways, "follow the leader" car-playing, and assuming other drivers are "dissing" them, when the other drivers are merely following posted traffic speeds, are some of the usual daily fare on "the beltway." Breaking-in-line driving is standard operating procedure for many.
No wonder that professional truckers voice support for slower speeds [for the non-truck drivers]. Their high fuel costs can also be helped by slower speeds, and they don't want to be the only ones playing the turtle. On the other hand the slow, stop-and-go driving during the lengthy "rush" hour periods can't be viewed as economical in regard to fuel.
In my view far worse than speed on the highway is the inequality of vehicular sizes. A driver in a compact-style car must run partially "blind" on many occasion in and about "the beltway," due to the tall profiles of trucks, recreation vehicles, vans, trucks, and buses. Likewise, each of these other vehicles may have vision problems, when a "bigger boy" is in front of him. There is nothing more perilous to safe driving than the big three: driver having a heart-attack, "big dog" mechanically malfunctioning, and poor visibility. The disasters which occur in thick fog are regularly featured on tv news-programs and photo-oriented media, such as newspapers and news magazines. In these cases speed adds to a disaster but doesn't actually introduce it.
Personally, I have no problem with 70-75 miles an hour travelling, IF road conditions warrant it. Stupidity, not speed, causes most avoidable wrecks. No legislative body can control highway safety by speed limits. Further, the important issue of inequality of vehicles cannot be readily repaired or adjusted. Since the problems involving highway safety tend to rest on the individuals who cannot tolerate "rules of the road," there seems little that can be done other than strengthening the licensing process [perhaps including effective psychological profiling] and taking a very strict approach to malefactors who are guilty of breaking the most important of the "rules of the road."
At this time where all jurisdictions whine about "lack of money," no expenditures are going to be made to fix anything permanently--or anything approaching that. Therefore, the desperate ideas flung about radio news are sure to be misconceived "Hail Mary" shots. Hence, my advice is: Protect yourself at all times. You the doctor. You the lawyer. You the man [or woman].
To help usher in professional support, a trucking organization was cited, noting that truck drivers are fully in support of a 55 mile an hour limit. [Anyone who spends any time on the highways knows that truckers get their "big dogs" rolling 90 miles an hour, whenever the road shows some space.] They go slow at such notorious jam-spots as I95-I495 around Washington, D.C., due to the necessity. Nevertheless, these "pros" regularly get their rigs stuck under overpasses, which are clearly marked in regard to height tolerances. They also regularly "tip over" going up or down ramps. They also regularly "jack-knife" on these main arteries. For these pros other people are typically to blame. [It is part and parcel of the uniform "it's not my fault" syndrome in America. This syndrome gave birth to "no-fault" insurance.]
Folks, it is dangerous out there, but speed is not the issue; reckless driving and falling asleep at the wheel tend to be the main culprits. For sure, the Washington, D.C., area has a horde of dangerously foolish drivers, tail-gating and "cutting off" being considered normal by a significant percent of the drivers. High-speed weaving in semi-conjested roadways, "follow the leader" car-playing, and assuming other drivers are "dissing" them, when the other drivers are merely following posted traffic speeds, are some of the usual daily fare on "the beltway." Breaking-in-line driving is standard operating procedure for many.
No wonder that professional truckers voice support for slower speeds [for the non-truck drivers]. Their high fuel costs can also be helped by slower speeds, and they don't want to be the only ones playing the turtle. On the other hand the slow, stop-and-go driving during the lengthy "rush" hour periods can't be viewed as economical in regard to fuel.
In my view far worse than speed on the highway is the inequality of vehicular sizes. A driver in a compact-style car must run partially "blind" on many occasion in and about "the beltway," due to the tall profiles of trucks, recreation vehicles, vans, trucks, and buses. Likewise, each of these other vehicles may have vision problems, when a "bigger boy" is in front of him. There is nothing more perilous to safe driving than the big three: driver having a heart-attack, "big dog" mechanically malfunctioning, and poor visibility. The disasters which occur in thick fog are regularly featured on tv news-programs and photo-oriented media, such as newspapers and news magazines. In these cases speed adds to a disaster but doesn't actually introduce it.
Personally, I have no problem with 70-75 miles an hour travelling, IF road conditions warrant it. Stupidity, not speed, causes most avoidable wrecks. No legislative body can control highway safety by speed limits. Further, the important issue of inequality of vehicles cannot be readily repaired or adjusted. Since the problems involving highway safety tend to rest on the individuals who cannot tolerate "rules of the road," there seems little that can be done other than strengthening the licensing process [perhaps including effective psychological profiling] and taking a very strict approach to malefactors who are guilty of breaking the most important of the "rules of the road."
At this time where all jurisdictions whine about "lack of money," no expenditures are going to be made to fix anything permanently--or anything approaching that. Therefore, the desperate ideas flung about radio news are sure to be misconceived "Hail Mary" shots. Hence, my advice is: Protect yourself at all times. You the doctor. You the lawyer. You the man [or woman].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)