I do agree with you 99% of it but there is that time, that 1% chance were you can lose control of your vehicle and there was absolutly nothing that could have been done to avoid even if you were the best damned driver in the world. I find that extremly rare though and just about every time it is the drivers fault. As I mentioned before in another comment these DMV's or test offices or whatever they want to be called just don't give the necessary training people need to have. Also many people don't cope well with danger or have good motor skills or vision or capable of multitasking (which is a big part of driving), not responsible enough ie. impairment of some sort.
The point of the driving tests is to see if you are capable enough not just good enough to drive a car.
If cars are so smart, how come they crash?
· By: Gary Magwood
· Date: 2001-11-27
Comments (4) Join conversation
Gary Magwood is a driving educator and freelance writer. He can be reached at Drivability.ca.
I am a student of driving. I have made a study of the art and science for more than 30 years. I've taught racing drivers, police officers, cab drivers, emergency vehicle drivers, university students, seniors and all those who fit in between.
I am a keen observer of the driving environment. I watch other drivers, scrutinize highways and secondary roads for potential hazards, read road signs, check out the pixel boards on the multi-laners, and scan constantly for police presence. I note the type and condition of vehicles we drive. I do this not to be a model citizen but because it's a fascinating study.
Inevitably when training drivers I get drawn into interesting, and many times, intense discussions about the issue. I'm constantly amazed at the misconceptions and misperceptions that surround an activity that is such an integral part of our daily lives. I believe this is a reflection of how little we know or want to know; how little we credit the complexity of the task or how strongly we would object to any legislation construed as limiting our access to driving. These are not criticisms by any means-just observations.
These misconceptions are manifest in reports and stories describing vehicle crashes and collisions. Language is a powerful indicator of our attitudes.
Allow me to elucidate (learned this fancy talk from journalist Andy Fotheringham!). From community and national newspapers in the past month I have read:
- "A northbound vehicle entered the west ditch and struck the tree, wrapping around it. [sic]"
- "…was the result of a single vehicle losing control and shearing off a hydro pole…"
- "A vehicle struck the rock cut and rolled…"
- "A 2001 Aztec was traveling west overtaking traffic when a second westbound vehicle pulled out to pass. The Aztec attempted to avoid the other car lost control and rolled into the ditch."
- "…the car appears to have spun…"
- and, a few minute ago, on the radio, "…car spun out blocking the westbound lane…"
Amazing. I know major advances have been made in the technology of cars and trucks over the past 20 years. But, vehicles capable of performing these feats boggle my mind. I'm convinced that vehicles sitting in driveways, parked at a meter, or in a mall parking lot just kind of sit there and are not a menace to anything or anyone.
Now, put a driver behind the wheel with little or no training and suddenly the picture changes.
Vehicles can't enter ditches, shear off hydro poles, strike rock cuts, spin out, or pull out to pass. They have to be driven into these situations by you and I. They are incapable of performing any task until instructed or guided by us. We drive them into ditches, hydro poles and rock cuts because we were never taught how not to when we qualified for our drivers licenses.
A couple of trips around the block and parallel parking practice does not prepare us to deal with an emergency. We don't learn what to do when weather deteriorates, when a tire blows out, or when another driver loses control in front of us.
It would seem it's easier to blame the vehicles, highways, weather, other drivers, transports, and almost anything else. Otherwise we would have to admit we are woefully ill-prepared to perform the complex task of driving.
This state of affairs exists because it seems we are reluctant to take responsibility for our own well being.
So, please, when reporting or describing crashes and collisions let's put the "blame" where it should truly rest: on drivers not vehicles.
Comments
Johann, on Tuesday, 29. August 2006 at 08:55 PM
Ray Rauanheimo, on Saturday, 25. November 2006 at 06:33 PM
Johan, DMV is a testing facility, not a teaching one. Perhaps a good arguement could be made to have the testing be more extensive, however, there would be much objection to that. Required schooling could be an answer, if there were some way the instructors could be held accountable for lax or incomplete training of the individual.
JJM PE, on Tuesday, 29. May 2007 at 02:44 PM
Gary, traffic safety research supports your opinion. Only 12% of crashes have contributing factors related to vehicle malfunctions. Some of these are indubitably due to maintenance errors by the driver or owner. 85% are due to driver factors, and 30% are environmental factors.
Given how much a role the driver plays, it's appalling how little crash-avoidance information is given in defensive driver classes. There is a lot of room for improvement.
Nikki, on Sunday, 27. July 2008 at 08:09 AM
I didn't even take the driver's test through the DMV; i did it through a driving school and it was the easiest test I'd ever taken in my entire life. Up until the point of the driver's school, I had only done driving simulation (a safety defensive driving course) and about 2-3 hours driving on roads tops. Through the driving school, all I did was drive around. There was very little, if any, serious instruction on how to drive. And at the end of the course, I was handed a ticket saying I could go get my driver's license. I never even had to do the dreaded three point turn or parallel parking.
