Friday, September 10, 2010

There is such thing as an accident

The Toronto Star's Public Editor discusses whether it's appropriate to use the word "accident" to refer to a car crash, on the basis that there's always a reason or cause for a car crash. In this article, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the Toronto Police says:

“drive distracted, impaired, fatigued, aggressive, unaware or unskilled and you will cause injuries and/or death.”


I don't think "unskilled" belongs on this list. While it is true that being unskilled increases your risk of an accident, being unskilled is not negligent. It is not deliberate. It is not a moral failing, it is not a sin, and it can coexist with absolutely perfect diligence. Being unskilled - and driving while unskilled - is necessary and unavoidable; all skilled drivers were once unskilled drivers.

Suppose I called up Sgt. Burrows and said "I'm an unskilled driver. What can I do to remedy that?" He would probably tell me to find a reputable driving school. Then suppose I find my reputable driving school and ask them what I can do to become a skilled driver. I am absolutely certain that, on top of giving me a training plan, they would tell me "Practise, practise, practise." So to become a skilled driver, I would have to drive while unskilled, extensively. I would have to drive through my entire unskilled phase, and my unskilled phase wouldn't go away unless I drove through it. Yes, instruction is available, but you really do have to practise to make it work.

As an example, let's look at the problem of black ice. I have never knowingly experienced black ice as either a driver or a passenger, and I have never knowingly seen black ice. (It's possible that I met it as a child before I ever had to think about how to drive on it, but I have no memory of any sight or experience called "black ice.") As it happens, I do have some driver education and I do know the theory of what to do on black ice, but, having never knowingly encountered it, I remain unskilled.

So suppose I get behind the wheel of a car and encounter some black ice. Would I recognize it? Maybe, maybe not. Would I react correctly and in time? Maybe, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. Perhaps I'll release the gas pedal, tap the brakes, steer in the direction I want to go (not falling into the trap of thinking about what "steer into the skid" actually means), and bring my car to a safe stop. Or perhaps I won't realize what's happening until it's too late, crash into something, and then go "Oh, so THAT'S what black ice is!"

If I do crash the very first time I ever encounter black ice, that would be entirely due to being unskilled, and entirely an accident. It wouldn't be on purpose. It wouldn't be due to negligence. And, in my specific case, it wouldn't be preventable. Maybe it's just one of those cases where you can't do something right until you try it a few times. The first time I don't recognize what's happening until it's too late. The second time I realize what's happening, but maybe you have to turn the wheel and do the brakes with more or less intensity than I'd anticipated. The third time maybe I get it right. Not much we can do to expedite that learning curve. Yes, it's certainly suboptimal and a risk to the other drivers on the road for me to be out there without having ever been on black ice, but there's no other way to become skilled at it.

One thing I think I've noticed is that driving is one of the few areas where being unskilled is seen as some kind of moral failing, rather than a benign need to practise more or work harder. It's possible I'm biased towards noticing this pattern because driving is one of the things I'm worst at (another thing I'm bad at - and where lack of skill is also seen as something of a red flag - is people skills). In most other areas of life, I find if I'm not good at something, general societal attitude is a chipper "Don't worry, work hard and practise and you'll be fine!" When I was a kid being pressured into being an engineer, I was told not to worry about the fact that I'm not good at making or designing actual physical things that exist in reality - school would get me there! There are even certain circles where being good at stuff is considered "elite" and therefore suspect. But in driving, it's the opposite. We've all heard people shout "Learn to drive!" at other cars. The Globe & Mail recently had a column where an adult learning to drive for the first time wrote about her experiences, and there were people in the comments telling her to get off the road because she doesn't know how to drive.

In most areas of life, I feel it's morally imperative for me to be instantly competent, but the rest of the world disagrees. Early on in my current job, I did a bit of a messy job on a difficult text and apologized to my reviser. He replied "You've been here two weeks! We don't expect you to be good yet!" But driving is one of the few areas of life where it would take a long time for me to become competent, and the rest of the world sees that as a moral failing.

7 comments:

CQ said...

This is one of those ALL or NOTHING stances which I hate. I believe most car accidents are readily avoidable - but certainly never 'all'.
It's why I hate the position of comfortable Socialists who scream against any dared spending cuts. For example, giving the TTC ticket collectors, etc. 48 thousand dollars a year with pension etc. is very reasonable even if that would be a 20% salary cut. Where money needs to be spent is towards the truly disadvantaged and vulnerable and not the 'you have to, and always do, tell others your plight' limp-alongers.

impudent strumpet said...

I don't see the analogy, or how decent labour conditions precludes helping the disadvantaged, but anyway...

I think the issue with a 20% salary cut is, I don't know about you, but if my salary were suddenly cut by 20% I couldn't afford to pay my rent any more. I'd have to either break my lease or go into the red until my lease ends, and then somehow put together first and last and moving expenses to relocate somewhere where life is more difficult (lower quality building, probably more bugs, etc.)

Most people's housing is commensurate with their income. (Maybe not if you make a huge amount of money or live somewhere way outside of the city where housing is cheap, but if we're talking about TTC employees we're talking about Toronto.) Creating a situation where people can no longer afford their home is really disproportionately punitive.

CQ said...

Rent is easily affordable at 48K a year in Toronto. Just a weekend ago, the Star ran an featured article berating how 60% of local city Cops who lived outside of Toronto. Cops apparently are a separate and attackable class of public servants for the Left. There was no comparable stats given for Teachers and Doctors and Parks workers or Torstar writers & editors. Then there are the employees of licenced ownership & competitionally protected companies like Rogers' CHFI morning show DJ Erin Davis who do have an official Toronto home address but really live in cottage country as much as possible.

That TTC sleeper - one of three photographed last January BTW, lives a couple of hours east along the 401. Remember when bus drivers & flatfoots would be depicted as inner city & low-middle income dwellers?

------
It's not so much about decent wages "precluding" helping the truly disadvantaged as it is about sucking out the entire base of tax revenues plus(!) forcing huge unpaid year after year tax deficits for those unaffordable labour perks which are well beyond fair marketplace conditions. That level of public wages is not(!) absolutely mandatory for letting the poor grasp at leftover socialist crumbs.

impudent strumpet said...

It's not so much about what $48K can buy, but rather what the effect would be on people if you suddenly cut their salary from (if I'm following your math properly) $60K to $48K. They're there, earning $60K, and they make housing decisions based on that, signing a lease, moving all their stuff, choosing schools for their kids. They probably make family planning decisions based on that too - the amount of space you can afford is certainly a factor! Then suddenly their salary is cut 20%. Suddenly they can't afford their home. Suddenly they can't afford the children they may have already had! That is a really disproportionately cruel thing to do to someone who hasn't done anything wrong, especially since the demand for the services they're providing remains constant and might even be increasing.

As for helping the disadvantaged and vulnerable, the one single thing standing between me and being disadvantaged and vulnerable is decent employment. I'm not going to be so assholic as to deny that to anyone else.

Also, you can help me out with something I've been trying to figure out for some time. If you think TTC employees' compensation is well above fair market conditions, why don't you work for the TTC? Whenever I see a job I think makes way more money than it deserves I always look into how to get the job (so far it has always turned out either the job is way harder than I thought or you need decades of seniority to make the money I was hearing about). But I've often heard people complaining specifically about the TTC and but none of them seem to have looked into how to work there.

CQ said...

Oft bathroom breaks, perhaps. Same reason I don't work on a 1000 person car assembly line - hold up everybody, I'll be back in 5, again.

laura k said...

"The Globe & Mail recently had a column where an adult learning to drive for the first time wrote about her experiences, and there were people in the comments telling her to get off the road because she doesn't know how to drive."

Gah. Awful.

I guess it's because in certain pursuits, an error either hurts no one very much, or hurts only the learner/less-skilled person him/herself. Whereas mistakes when driving a car are likely to hurt others.

I'm not sure why CQ thinks that "most" car accidents are "readily avoidable," but I do wonder what percentage of car accidents are even partially attributable to lack of driving skills. Drunk driving - no. Texting while driving - no. Reckless driving or speeding - no. Vehicle malfunction - no.

Most learning drivers drive slowly and use extra caution, in my experience.

impudent strumpet said...

It would be difficult to quantify to a certain extent, because what might look reckless to an observer might actually be due to lack of skill (can't think of a specific example because I've never been skilled), and maybe a skilled driver could handle a vehicle malfunction better somehow?

Also, there could be situations where two unskilled drivers would crash, whereas if one of the drivers was skilled they could avoid the crash.