Bad Drivers

[crazylegs]

Having read a number of posts on CS.com and reviewing the state of driving on the roads, I have come up with a brilliant solution.

Mandatory retesting every five-ten years.

Driving is a privilege, not a right and in doing so you are controlling around 1.5t-3t of metal at speeds of up to 70mph (in the UK at least). The abysmal placing of parking, constant speeding and general lack of awareness of hazards and other road users is probably the leading reason why we can't reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.

Each person killed on the roads costs the UK around £1,000,000, anything we can do to reduce the numbers killed is only a good thing.

[Norton]

I often think the U.S. could use mandatory re-testing as well, but I wonder how effective it would really be. It would only get rid of truly incompetent drivers (many probably elderly), but it wouldn't help those who are able to drive safely, but choose not to.

The jerk who generally speeds, tailgates, and cuts people off will probably shape up for the road test, then go right back to unsafe driving practices once he/she is not being tested.

I think the general attitudes of drivers need to change in order for accidents to really be reduced. If everyone behind the wheel would stop feeling entitled to be first and fastest on the roads, then we'd see a change. Unfortunately, such an attitude overhaul would be difficult if not impossible to achieve on a large scale.

[Pedersen]

Allow me to offer a modest proposal, then. Something I just the other day thought I should post online.

Fines for those who cause accidents. And I mean proportional fines.

Basically, the fine is equal to some dollar amount/hr * the number of people who were delayed * the amount of delay for the driver who caused the accident.

For instance, assume $6/hr, 500 people delayed, all delayed for an hour. $3000 fine.

It's an imperfect idea, to be sure, but it is an idea. Make that debt non-dischargeable through bankruptcy.

Suddenly, causing an accident is going to cost some real money, in addition to everything else.

Dunno if it's a good idea, though.

[crazylegs]

Dunno if it's a good idea, though.

Would rather the fine be proportional to the persons earnings, else you could have the store clerk and the CEO paying the same fine, who would it hurt more? I thinks its Sweden that has this idea so technically the fines are uncapped as each speeding fine is a certain % of your salary.

[Boozy]

For instance, assume $6/hr, 500 people delayed, all delayed for an hour. $3000 fine.

Two words: Logistical clusterfuck.

Too many variables. But I like the concept. Sweden may have the right idea.

[Pedersen]

Would rather the fine be proportional to the persons earnings, else you could have the store clerk and the CEO paying the same fine, who would it hurt more?

Hmmm, maybe make the hourly rate equal to that person's hourly rate then. So that a CEO who makes (effectively) $1000/hour will pay a much bigger fine.

Two words: Logistical clusterfuck.

Too many variables.

Actually, it's not too bad. Certain variables are known: Average length of a car. How far back the backup runs (is it one mile back from the site, or is it 10?) is also usually known. The number of lanes is also known. The length of time it takes to clear the accident is also known. The length of time from accident to first response is known. The only part that would be hard to determine is the average speed through the traffic jam, and that could be solved with a simple video camera.

Put all of those pieces together, and you get enough information to make a single equation, which results in a single number. That number equals how many minutes are lost out of everybody's lives because some jackass caused an accident. Multiply that number of minutes by some hourly rate (the one most contestable piece), and there's the fine.

Heck, while we're at it, make them pay the cleanup cost, too. Make it illegal for insurance to pay these fines. And make it illegal for these fines to be discharged by bankruptcy. All of a sudden, the costs of an accident are very high.

Finally, make sure people know how much it will cost them to cause an accident. And that they're going to be screwed for a very long time if they cause it.

I'll bet the accident rate plummets.

[Seshat]

I do have an objection, however.

If you're going to do that, you need more reliable 'cause of accident' indicators. My best friend's car was written off because of an accident that legally, she is considered to have caused. Without "black boxes" in cars, neither the police nor the insurance company could tell that she was all but stationary at the time, and the other driver was travelling at some significant fraction of light speed. Without evidence otherwise, the person who was intending to turn was deemed at fault.

If you're going to make people accountable for the costs of accidents, you need to install "black boxes" akin to those used in the airline industry, and have accident analysts available to accurately tell who is, and who isn't responsible.

Even then, in an accident between a powerful person with lots of money and a poor person, the poor person is highly likely to get blamed regardless of who's at fault: the powerful person will use his leverage and money to get the best analyst available on his side.

[Pedersen]

Thank you. I knew there were some faults in it, but every time I've seriously pondered this idea, I've been stuck in traffic that moves two miles in 30 minutes because some jackass rearended another on a 70MPH highway and all traffic is stopped because of it.

Obviously not the best frame of mind for figuring out how to reduce this happening again

Even still, it's a nice fantasy.

And no, I wouldn't accept such black boxes in my vehicles, not willingly. A little more privacy loss can happen through them, and I've already given up enough, thank you.

[crazylegs]

Personally I like the idea of black boxes for determining who is at fault at an RTA but for no other reason, not for catching speeders, not for working out who contravened Road Traffic Laws, if it would reduce my premiums I would have one fitted.

[Pedersen]

Here's the problem with those black boxes, though: They are the opening onto a slippery slope that I don't want to go down.

Here's where it starts: The device is capable of recording only two minutes of data. After that, it overwrites everything repeatedly. End result, only two minutes are stored at any one time, with no physical possibility of retrieving more.

Then somebody has a lawsuit where they really needed more than two minutes of data to prove something. Everybody believes this person, but no one is able to prove the claims. So now it goes up more (let's say 10 minutes).

Along comes another case, but this one has no accident. Instead, something else happened where it was shown that the data from the black box was useful in proving something else (for instance, a murder). But, of course, the data is gone, if only they had had more recording time in there. Say, a few days worth of data.

So now the new limit is three days. And along comes another case, this time a divorce. Again, the data from the black box would have been useful. But this time, they needed a major jump up. Several weeks worth of data.

Now your car is recording several weeks worth of data about how you drive. That's information that would be useful to insurance companies, so now they get in on the act. It's now mandatory to take your car to a data reading station every month to maintain insurance coverage.

Of course, this just annoys everybody, especially the rural people who will have to drive an hour each way just to get to the nearest data reading station. A large hue and cry goes up, and the politicians bow to the will of the people: All black boxes will have a cell phone type device installed to automatically transmit the data at regular intervals. People rejoice: No more trips to the data reading stations.

Then comes law enforcement, who realizes the gold mine of data that is now available, and demands that these readings be kept for years and years, on the off-chance that they might be able to solve a crime or two extra over the next 10 years thanks to this. Oh, and these devices need to include GPS modules, too, to definitively tie a vehicle to a location.

How paranoid is this sort of thing? Not nearly so much as you might wish to believe.

Legal cases have already been decided on the basis of the data in those boxes. Divorce proceedings have already seen EZPass records subpoenaed. Various law enforcement organizations have already been demanding various concessions so that they can do new things that they cannot do now (see Carnivore, CALEA, etc).

GPS modules with cell phones already exist, and are used by companies to track their vehicles (note: I'm not opposed to this, they are tracking their property, not someone else's).

Health insurance companies are already trying to ensure they get access to results of genetic testing, resulting in people who want to know what their genetic code says going to private screeners who don't submit results to insurance companies.

One northwestern state (Oregon or Washington, can't remember) is trying to find a way to implement people reporting distance traveled on their roads to be taxed by the mile on a yearly basis.

(Seemingly unrelated) Look at your cellphone. Compare it to what it would have been 10 years ago. Likely you now have a cell phone / camera / other applications and games. Some of them are even MP3 players and personal information managers you can use to store all your contacts. Devices are converging, so that one device is doing quite a few things.

The pieces are all there. Various organizations are trying to make these things happen. Don't make it easier for them to do it.

Now for the truly paranoid part: If this does come to pass, then oppression will be universal. The powerful can frame the powerless for anything. Someone dares to speak out? What about an unsolved murder from a few years ago? A few commands to the storage for all of this data, and suddenly the person who spoke out had his car at the place the body was found sometime between the time of murder and the time of discovery. New suspect!

Maybe a few deletions/alterations are needed to make the guy into a serial speeder. Suddenly his insurance premiums have gone up (due to a number of speeding tickets having been issued), and he can't drive anywhere. Getting support for your cause can be difficult when you have to use nothing but public transportation.

And since this database hasn't been wrong before, people will believe that this person is guilty.

So no, I do not support these black boxes. I do not want to go down this slippery slope. And I will fight it vigorously.

[Boozy]

Some people will argue that "it will never happen", but personally I think your scenario is disturbingly realistic.

Except you left out the part where companies will buy access to black box data for marketing purposes.

[Pedersen]

Sorry about that Boozy. Somehow, I completely spaced on that aspect. Thank you for reminding me