Jim Kenzie's The Driver's Seat

Smokin' in the Boys Room

Yeah yeah, another '60s pop song reference. Get used to it.

Must have been a slow crime day in Essex County last week.

An O.P.P. officer nabbed a transport truck driver for smoking while driving.

Distraction?

Nope. He could probably deal with fumbling around with the lighter and the smokes package, flicking the ashes out the window, rifling around between his knees when he dropped the butt down there.

And it's not like he was talking on his cell phone or anything.

He was nailed for 'smoking in an enclosed workplace'.

I'm impressed that the officer even knew this law existed, and could figure out at speed and at a distance that the crime was goin' down.

Steely-eyed minion of the law, serving and protecting.

Now, I hate smoking. When they ask me, "Smoking or non-smoking?" at a hotel, I tell them I wish the people who built the hotel hadn't been smokers. Most of my male relatives killed themselves by smoking. How anyone who has heard that Bob Newhart 'Sir Walter Raleigh' routine - and who hasn't? - can still smoke is beyond me.

But - isn't this going just a trifle too far?

News reports have included comments from drivers who share trucks with smoking colleagues. My sympathies - and the law - are totally with them. Not only is cigarette smoke carcinogenic and a serious problem for those with allergies, it just plain stinks.

The rights of the smoker end right at the lit end of his weed. They can inhale all they want; it's the exhaling the rest of us object to, not to mention the unfiltered smoke off the lit end which never even gets into the lungs of the smoker.

But apparently this guy's truck was his own. No-one else ever drove it. So no-one but this guy was affected by his smoking in it.

Yes, technically it is 'an enclosed workplace'.

But smoking per se is not illegal (well, smoking tobacco is not illegal...).

Where's the harm? (Except to the perp.) Where's the foul? (Except for the smell.)

Can the O. P. P. now come into the home office of anyone who happens to be a smoker - maybe even (gasp) an automotive journalist - and charge the occupant with 'smoking in an enclosed workplace'?

I think maybe someone had a bit too much time on their hands, and is in need of a little perspective.

The Hansard of the Common Man - Follow-Up Number Two

Thanks to all of you who have replied to and commented on my rant on hand-held versus hands-free cell phones. Given the dead-slow Internet access I am still suffering through out here at Kenzie World Headquarters (I thought the Rogers USB Rocket Stick was the answer to my prayers; it wasn't) it is very difficult for me to even post all the comments, but I am trying.

The rant also appeared in the print edition of Wheels Saturday, and generated another big response.

Some of you agree with me; some don't. Hey - that's what makes life interesting.

I did get a call from Dr. Bob Saturday night. One of my best friends from toddler stage, he became my kids' dentist. Hadn't spoken to him in a while, but he called after reading the piece in Wheels to report - HE WAS ONE OF THEM.

He was driving down from his summer place on Georgian Bay, chatting with his daughter on his Bluetooth-equipped hands-free cell phone. He was driving through a small town he has driven through a million times. He knows the speed limit here is 50 km/h. He always obeys it.

But when he glanced down at the speedometer, he was going 70. He hadn't been paying attention because he was on his phone.

On his hands-free phone.

He got away with it on two levels: He wasn't nabbed for speeding; and he wasn't involved in an incident.

But when he got home and read my story, he realized that this is exactly what I was talking about.

He was Exhibit A for the prosecution, namely that inattention behind the wheel is not a function of manipulating a device; it is a function of lack of mental engagement.

As such, the ban on hand-held devices is doomed to be political grandstanding, with little to no material benefit.

OK, maybe a few people won't text while driving. But if they were ever stupid enough to think that was acceptable behaviour behind the wheel, the (very low) threat of a ticket isn't likely to stop them.

Also, distractions like touch-screen SatNav are not covered by this law.

Some argue that this law is better than nothing.

If it is, it is only extremely marginally so.

There are vastly more important safety issues we should be charging our road designers, sign painters, lane marking painters and police with fixing and enforcing.

Let them get on with it and stop wasting our time and tax money.

The Hansard of the Common Man - Follow-Up

One of my editors tells me that my blog/rant on the upcoming cell phone law generated a bazillion page views in the first few hours. He put it on The Star's Home Page and it got a couple bazillion more.

That makes him happy. Happy editor; happy writer...

It has generated tons of comments too, which I am 'person-fully' attempting to publish. (I have had Internet and e-mail issues for the past week at Kenzie World Headquarters; I'm now in a hotel in Germany with high-speed, so YAY!)

Said editor also tells me not to try and reply to each and every comment individually, not even correct the spelling because it just takes too long!

So I'm trying to answer a bunch of them here.

Not all the comments are positive (well, some of you are positive that I'm totally out to lunch, but that's OK too.)

First, apologies to Donald Redelmeier, co-author of the research paper in the New England Journal of Medicine away back in 1997 which formed the scientific basis for the rant. He's with the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, not the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, and thanks to Steve Shumak for pointing that out to me.

There ARE indeed world-class traffic researchers at "Skuke"; Dr. Redelmeier just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Some commenters say 'my' argument is weak.

But of course, it isn't 'my' argument; it's the argument of the scientific research. If you want to question the science, be my guest; I prefer to believe in it.

The research tells us WHAT happened; it doesn't always tell us WHY it happened. I suspect Dr. Redelmeier and his colleagues were surprised that hands-free didn't turn out to be safer than hand-held; it just didn't.

Likewise, they were probably surprised that the deterioration in driving ability didn't instantly improve when the study subject hung up.

That does however 'support the hypothesis' (that's how research people talk) that it is not an issue of manual dexterity, but of mental engagement. Just because you hang up the phone doesn't mean you stop thinking about the conversation.

Some commenters question how talking on the phone could be more of a distraction than talking to someone who is in the car - we obviously could never ban that. Again, the research doesn't necessarily tell us WHY that is the case, but it does suggest that it IS the case.

I have one snippet of a theory on that, and it stems from a belief my late brother had about his career as a radio announcer. Unlike a lot of radio personalities, Ross DID have a 'face for TV' (he was an extremely good-looking man) and he did in fact do some TV. But he always preferred radio to TV because it was a more involving medium, in that the listener could not SEE what he looked like, what colour shirt he was wearing, etc. - the listener had to make that up for himself, so there was more of a connection than with TV, which laid out everything for all to see.

If anybody really understands Marshall McLuhan, maybe this is related to what he was driving at too.

Getting back to cell phones versus in-car conversations, with the former you have to imagine what the person on the other end of the 'line' is wearing, what he/she looks like, what condition his/her office is in. Not consciously perhaps. But maybe this type of conversation simply engages more brain cells than talking to someone in the car.

Like I said, just a theory that may at least partially explain the results of the research.

My rant was indeed a blog, intended to generate conversation, and it certainly did that! It was not necessarily a manifesto about what should be done. I don't know whether banning hands-free devices too would accomplish much, but IF you think cell phone conversations are dangerous enough that they should be regulated, then only banning hand-held is unlikely to have much if any effect.

Some maintain that it is a step in the right direction. Well, not on the face if it, not based on this research.

But I will allow that IF it brings the issue to people's minds, that talking on a cell can be dangerous, maybe the ban just on hand-held will reduce cell chatting sufficiently that it will help.

A few people cheekily asked me to demonstrate how they could "text" other than hand-held. Well, I'd be the last guy to ask, because I have enough trouble typing with all (or most of my) ten fingers. With only my thumbs? Not gonna happen...

But I was under the impression that there is voice-to-text capability, that you can speak into your device and have it converted into a text message. As one of the comedians on the Sirius Satellite Radio comedy channels noted, if they could then convert the text back into voice at the other end, it would be... just... like... a ... phone...

The Hansard of the Common Man

Those pixelboard signs on our highways are one mechanism our government uses to get in touch with drivers. Most of the time the advice thereon is fatuous or obvious, or both. Sometimes, the warnings about slowdowns ahead are actually useful.

AP FILE PHOTO

The issue at stake, says Jim Kenzie, is: hand-held, hands-free -- it makes absolutely no difference, any cellphone communication is dangerous.

These days, one tidbit they are offering is that as of October 26, Ontario's ban on hand-held communications devices such as cell phones comes into effect.

However, we are also informed via other means that for the first three months, no tickets will be issued. Just warnings. Part of what the government calls an "education campaign".

What a great idea! This gives the government three more months to come to its senses.

The only education that needs doing is that the government has to educate itself to the reality of digital communications and traffic.

There's no doubt - you witness it every day - that talking and/or texting while driving is dumb and dangerous. The issue at stake here is: Hand-held, hands-free - it makes absolutely no difference.

All this stupid law does is give the cops more nuisance things to do, leaving them less time to do something useful.

There are constant complaints in our media about the brain drain, about how Canada cannot attract top-level researchers to our country.

But we HAVE some of the highest-level traffic researchers in the entire world right here at my Alma Mater, the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto, located less than two kilometres from Queen’s Park.

And what does the government do? It ignores them.

Because some of the research that proved that the oh-so-real deterioration in driving skill associated with these devices is due to the mental distraction of phoning or texting, not the reduction in physical dexterity caused by the manipulation of the devices, was done by U of T engineering faculty.

Banning hand-held devices is actually worse than useless, because it allows us (including the government and the police) to assume that we have in fact solved the problem.

The politicians pat themselves on the back and vote themselves another raise.

The cops write hundreds of tickets, easy pickings for their (official-or-not) quotas.

And because it is now "legal" to chat or text as long as you're doing it hands-free, we're probably in more danger now because such behaviour is now officially sanctioned.

This is beyond - WAY beyond - stupid.

Luckily, they do have these extra three months to figure this out. If you're going to ban in-car communications devices, DO IT. What do you think the chances are? Exactly.

If you aren't going to ban them, then deploy the cops to do something useful, like nailing left-lane bandits and red-light runners.

Can anyone explain to me why obvious stuff like this is so hard for these people to understand?

Wheels: Hand-held phone ban no big deal

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the - um, EDR?

One of the all-time great movies is the 1964 Stanley Kubrick masterpiece, Dr. Strangelove. It's about nuclear warfare. It is a comedy. Kids, rent it. You won't be sorry.

One of the plot points involves something called the Doomsday Machine, a Top Secret device invented by Russia to blow up the entire world if it senses missiles heading towards the Soviet Motherland.

Alexei, the Russian ambassador to the US, brags that it was the ultimate deterrent.

Dr. Strangelove, played by Peter Sellers (who also played the US President - I told you it was a comedy) notes that the whole point of a deterrent is lost if it is kept a secret!

I think of this scene every time I drive by the signs indicating the EDR routes on our highways. OK, not a perfect analogy, but EDR stands for Emergency Detour Route.

Do YOU know anything about the EDR? Have you ever seen any instructions on what would constitute an emergency serious enough to invoke them? Or what to do when such an emergency occurs?

Would you even know WHEN it hit if it did hit?

I don't.

OK, so I Googled it.

But why don't we KNOW about these things?

Great Minds Think Alike, Fools Seldom Differ.

I had *680 on my cell, ready to hit SEND.

But before I called Darryl Dahmer, 680 News' crack traffic reporter, I figured - better check out what he had to say first. It was "on the ones" - can't remember exactly when, but it was some time yesterday - and he was just coming on air.

After his usual thorough report, Double-D added, "And folks, please turn on your full headlights. It's not enough that you can see others, but that others can also see you."

Not a verbatim quote, but close enough.

How did he know that was exactly what I was going to call him about?

Obviously, the people who read this blog already understand this. You're car people. You get it.

But how do we reach those who don't get it? I thought, how better to get this message across than via the most listened-to traffic reporter in the city?

He was already there.

As you may remember, it poured rain most of yesterday. I was driving around in various parts of the GTA. At one point I counted no more than one car in ten which had its headlights on.

What's the big deal? Don't all cars since the early 1990s have Daytime Running Lights?

Most do, although I saw a few that did not. I could not tell whether they were US-sourced cars (Americans aren't smart enough to figure this out - geez; they're still arguing about Health Care!) or if they had had the DRL disabled, which you can do in some cars if you know the trick. Why you would you want to remains an open question.

But as I have complained here before, most cars with DRL only switch on the front lights, usually 85 percent intensity high beams.

This is because that's all Transport Canada requires of car manufacturers. And the sad fact is: when it comes to safety, most car manufacturers still only do what is mandated - they don't go the extra half-step, even if it is essentially cost-free.

The obvious problem with this approach to DRL is that it leaves no illumination to the rear of the car. And on the highway, where the majority of our kilometres are driven, this means that especially in rain or misty conditions, you're essentially flying blind.

A few weeks ago, I brought this issue up with respect to cars driving at night with only DRL on. It is worse when it is raining at night because the driver can see light shining in front of his car (from the DRL) reflecting off the wet road. But because most cars also switch on the dashboard lights when DRL comes on, he would have no clue that his rear lights were not on.

I have tried to devise a way to indicate to people that their rear lights are not on.

Flicking high beams just seems to irritate people.

On most cars, you cannot switch the lights off entirely, so off-on-off-on cannot be done.

Honking and/or waving is likely to be ignored or misinterpreted, and is also distracting to both the warner and the warnee.

Short of my own pixelboard sign in the back of my car (I have seen similar inventions), there's no obvious way to get this message across.

There are, however, a variety of solutions.

From a regulatory perspective, Transport Canada at the very minimum just HAS to make it illegal to have the dash lights on when DRL is on. This way, at least at night you'll have some clue that your lights need switching on, although it won't do much for the daytime rain situation.

The province could pass a law mimicking those in several US states which say that whenever the wipers are on, the lights must also be on. A massive ad campaign, including regular messages on the pixelboard signs on our freeways, would help.

It wouldn't be all that technically difficult to wire all cars in such a manner.

Some newer cars have an "AUTO" setting which turns the lights on at dusk.

It would be better still if ALL lights came on ALL the time. Some car makers (Volkswagen and Volvo, to name two) already do. To make others comply would again require a Transport Canada regulation.

But the simplest solution comes from the Nike athletic shoe company:

Just Do It.

Get in. Fire up. Belt on. Lights on. Drive away.

Safely.

Simple.

Do it - for all of us. Tell your non-car-people friends and acquaintances.

And Darryl my friend, keep spreading the word.