Skip to main content

Another Lost to "Distracted" Driving

I can't say for sure that I've ever met Shawn Smith.  Chances are that I likely rode with him at some point, but was likely riding behind him as this elite cyclist disappeared over the hill in front of me. Gainesville, FL has a pretty tight-knit cycling community of riders, with excursions pedaling out daily from the edges of town on to beautiful country roads. 

Hardly a time goes by that group rides are buzzed by drivers passing too close. Some do it because they are impatient and won't slow down to safely pass. Some to it on purpose because they feel a sick need to harass athletes or recreational riders. 

Others do it because they are staring at a phone, reaching under a seat, or engaging any one of dozens of activities not conducive to driving.  We see it every day as drivers.  That car drifting  into the bike lane, then rapidly pulling back to where it is supposed to be.

Every. Damn. Day.

Distracted drivers kill almost ten people a day, and injure about 1000 a day.  That's about on-par with non-suicide gun deaths, a place where there is plenty of rage and stiff penalties for criminal infractions. 

This week a "distracted" driver killed Shawn Smith, an accomplished cyclist that trained daily on Alachua County's gorgeous roadways.  He leaves behind a wife and 13-year-old son.  He was hit from behind by a driver in an F150 pickup and died the next day. 

The Gainesville cycling community loses another to distracted driving.
This is Shawn Smith, husband and father.

It is imperative that we add some nuance to the term distracted driving. We need to define what the distraction is and act accordingly.  Is it unavoidable, like a blown tire or weather?  Or is it completely avoidable, like texting a friend, searching for a phone number, or looking for a radio station? 

The latter are conscious choices, decisions one makes fully understanding that there is risk in engaging those behaviors.  It is the same thing as drunk driving, maybe worse, because the decisions are unimpaired by chemistry. They are a product of free will, and conscious disregard for others. 

In this case, if it is determined that the driver was distracted by choice, he/she will get a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine. We've seen that plenty of times before. 

When graduate student McNair Bostick was murdered by a distracted driver, the 18 year old driver received a $1500 fine.  The soon to be Dr. Bostick's wife and newborn son lost a husband and father. 

When a friend's brother was hit and killed in Miami, the driver received no punishment. 

And the same will likely happen here.  

I'm not sure what the solution is.  The best might be to make consequences so disproportionately severe that drivers just don't go there.

But to Shawn's wife and son it does not matter.  They have been robbed of a beloved father and husband. 

We live in a time when riding a bicycle is one of the riskiest activities you can engage in.  Accidents do happen and always will.  But accidents caused by choice are not accidents, they are examples of deliberate contempt for the law and conscious knowledge that their negligence may harm someone else. 

Let's start raising retribution for harms caused by distracted drivers.  While I'm typically against draconian measures to curb behaviors, this is one place where they should exist. Distracted drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers, and we need to ramp up the social stigmatization and demand the most severe penalties for offenders-- especially if they harm someone else. 

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 

From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…