Beware of myths disguised as truths

I’ve heard plenty of propaganda pertaining to driving throughout my legally licensed life, and much of it is meritorious. However, to me, some of it lacks credibility. The preaching is continuous, and I perpetuate some of it. That’s because I believe in the importance of knowing and maintaining your vehicle, being clear on road rules, paying attention to the driving task, reducing distraction, avoiding anger, and driving defensively. They are all proven tenets.

Some other driving “truths” have fewer legs to stand upon. Examples? In my opinion, facts don’t support theories that tout ideas like lower speeds being safer, DRLs (daytime running lights) reducing accidents, or widespread ethanol use lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

Regarding vehicle speed, I’ve found that a “go with the flow” approach works well. For most driving, the majority of traffic is operating at a rate 2-5 mph over the posted limits. While running within that guideline, only a small fraction of the vehicles are going slower or faster than I.

Today, I think most posted speeds are reasonable — I didn’t feel that way in 1973 when Federally mandated 55 mph limits were in effect on the freeways nationwide. A review of history implies that this absurdly low speed was not any safer than today’s 70-75 mph highway limits.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal notes that for the first time since 1973 automobile insurance rates will decline nationwide. The article further explains that the losses incurred by auto insurance companies have been declining at least since 1997.

It is interesting that the last year that insurance rates declined was 1973, the last year before the federal government decided it — not the states — should set highway speed limits. It is even more interesting that when the federal government gave up on its 55 mph folly and returned speed limit authority to the states, auto insurance losses began a continual decline! Could there be a connection? Yes there could. The federal 55 mph speed limit disrupted normal traffic flow, ruined lane discipline, and encouraged traffic to move to less safe highways. Federal sanctions and enforcement incentives caused an allocation of enforcement resources to purposes that were counter-productive to public safety needs. Enforcement of the unfounded 55 mph speed limit took precedence over helping stranded motorists, seeking out impaired drivers, controlling traffic in construction zones and targeting truly dangerous drivers.

Repeal of the 55 mph speed limit was bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, which predicted blood and mayhem in the streets and huge increases in auto insurance costs. Organizations funded by insurance companies even claimed that upping the 55 mph speed limit would result in 6,400 additional fatalities annually. It didn’t happen. In 1996 the states resumed total control of their speed limits and within two years the vast majority have increased or extended their highest speed limits. A degree of balance has returned to enforcement priorities, traffic is moving more smoothly, lane discipline is being given more publicity, and drivers are leaving less safe two-lane highways for the convenience and speed of interstates. Better highways and better cars have certainly improved highway safety and indirectly reduced certain insurance costs. But don’t sell the benefits of rational speed limits short. Not only are they more comfortable and more efficient, they are also safer.

DRLs are promoted as safer for us too, but I’m not so sure. The mandates for daytime running lights began in a few Scandinavian countries, then migrated to Canada when a study there claimed them safer. In what seems more like a cost-saving move, GM decided to place the same system that was required in Canada on our U.S. vehicles. Now, GM is pushing for an American requirement of DRLs. It’s supposed to make a vehicle more visible, but isn’t it pretty easy for a good driver to see a vehicle in the daylight anyway?

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results: Vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal, but the meaning was straightforward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, “mask” other road users that don’t have headlights on, or don’t have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.

We’ve had fuel with 10 percent ethanol here already, and in that mixture, our vehicles run at about 15 percent reduced efficiency. Now, the federal government is spending billions on ethanol plants that will produce E85, an 85-percent dilution. That will require a new pump at the filling station, and new vehicles designed to run on the mix.

In short, ethanol is not a practical alternative to importing foreign fuels. A great deal of time, effort, and money go into producing ethanol, which ultimately contains only two-thirds of the energy contained in regular gasoline. I’ll write more about ethanol in future columns, as this misdirection continues.