Americans Don't Trust Driverless Cars

 The charts above are from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 10th and 12th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Marijuana Doesn't Pose A Danger To Drivers

The last time marijuana legalization was voted on in California, the anti-legalization forces were able to defeat it with a campaign that claimed legal marijuana would make the roads much less safe -- as drivers high on marijuana would pose a danger to others. Making this campaign very hypocritical was the fact that much of the funding for it came from alcohol producers and sellers -- a drug that has been long recognized as a danger to divers.

It was a lie, of course. Several studies in other countries, and a study done by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have shown that drivers on marijuana pose no more risk on our streets and highways than drivers on no drugs at all. This has been verified by the Colorado Department of Transportation, whose figures showed that traffic fatalities actually fell in 2014 (the first year that marijuana was legal in that state.

Fortunately, it looks like the American public is starting to realize this fact. A recent Gallup Poll (done on June 24th and 25th of a random national sample of 1,007 adults, with a 4 point margin of error) shows than only 29% of Americans now believe marijuana poses a serious driving risk (or only about 3 out of every 10 people).

That's still too high, and it's obvious that more education efforts must be made -- but at least the numbers are moving in the right direction (down). Marijuana does not pose any kind of danger to Americans -- not to drivers and not to users.

Marijuana Users Do NOT Pose A Safety Risk When Driving

A few years ago, California voted on whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana -- and the measure failed in a close vote. One of the most effective campaigns against legalization in that state was the claim that drivers who had used marijuana would pose a significant risk on the roads and highways -- a risk similar to that of alcohol users.

It was a lie. As I have posted before, several studies have shown that marijuana users don't pose anymore danger than those who have used no drug (including alcohol) at all. Those studies were all done in Canada, Australia, and Europe, because the U.S. government didn't want any studies done that would expose their decades of lies about marijuana.

But with four states already legalizing the gentle herb, and a growing number of Americans who believe it should be legalized, a study has finally been done in the United States -- a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation). And it comes as no surprise to me that the study verifies what those other studies have shown -- that drivers using marijuana pose no safety risk of causing crashes on our roads.

The results of their study are shown in the chart above. Note that even small amounts of alcohol usage will heighten the danger of a crash with alcohol. Even legal amounts can drive the rich up. The base for the study is 1.00 (the risk posed by non-users of any drug). A person with a .03 blood alcohol content has slightly elevated risk of 1.17, while a person with .05 (within the legal limit) has a risk of 2.05 (double the risk of non-users), and the risk continues to rise as the amount of alcohol used rises.

It's far different for marijuana though. The study showed those users posed no more danger that non-users. I'm sure those opposing the legalizing of marijuana will continue their false claim to scare voters (because too many are making too much money off keeping it illegal). But remember, they are LYING.

Bus Driver In Amarillo Refuses To Transport OWS protesters

I have always thought the purpose of a bus was to transport passengers -- as long as they didn't cause trouble or pose a danger to other passengers. But an Amarillo bus driver named Donald Ainsworth seems to think he can make up his own rules for passengers -- and his rule is that he won't allow anyone who disagrees with him politically to ride on the Greyhound bus he drives.

There were 13 Occupy Wall Street protesters coming from San Diego (California) to participate in the upcoming "Occupy Congress" demonstrations. They had no problems with the bus company or any of its drivers -- until they reached Amarillo on Saturday. Driver Ainsworth became upset when he learned the 13 riders were OWS protesters. He yelled at them and told them they weren't wanted, and when they got on the bus, he refused to drive the bus.

The protesters and other passengers were locked on the bus for an hour while the driver ranted and tried to decide what he would do. He finally called the Amarillo police to the bus station. After a discussion with police, in which they tried to talk him into just driving the bus, the police finally removed the 13 San Diego OWS passengers -- and Ainsworth drove the bus away leaving them stranded in Amarillo (even though they had tickets and were causing no trouble).

After being forced to stay overnight in the bus station, the 13 were finally able to board a bus on Sunday and continue their journey to Washington, D.C. This should never have happened. As an Amarillo resident, I am shocked at the way these visitors were treated in our city. Ainsworth has the right to any political beliefs he wants to have, but he does not have the right to force his beliefs on others or demand they have a certain political philosophy before they can ride on the bus.

To my knowledge the bus company has not made any public statements regarding the driver's conduct. Personally, I believe he should be fired. He has shamed himself, this city, and the company he works for.

Another Lie About Marijuana Exposed

For decades the government has been lying to Americans about marijuana, because they know they could not keep it illegal if Americans knew the truth. One of the latest lies is that driving under the influence of marijuana would pose a danger to the public. This lie was used by law enforcement agencies (who make millions off keeping marijuana illegal) in the last election in California to defeat the effort to legalize possession of small amounts.

They truth is that several studies have shown that drivers under the influence of marijuana are just as safe as drivers under the influence of no drug at all. Now there is even more proof of this. In states that have allowed medical marijuana to be sold, there has actually been a decrease in the number of auto accidents -- presumably because a significant number of drivers are smoking instead of drinking alcohol. You can read the whole story at the excellent blog Texas Tea Pad, where this is posted:


Re-posted from High Times

Amidst all the recent doom and gloom in the medical marijuana scene, an encouraging new study indicates there is a marked decrease in auto fatalities in states that have legalized medi-pot. Though the research has yet to be peer reviewed, it has been posted on the website of the German Institute for the Study of Labor after being released jointly by University of Colorado Denver professor Daniel Rees and Montana State University professor D. Mark Anderson.


Professors Rees and Anderson reported the traffic-death rate drops almost nine percent in states following legalization of medical marijuana. The pair of profs arrived at that calculation after including other factors such as traffic laws changes, seat-belt usage and miles driven. While the study does not openly declare that medicinal cannabis legalization was directly responsible for the reduction in traffic fatalities, the implication is clear.


However, Rees and Anderson do not attribute this decrease to drivers being more cautious when driving while medicated on marijuana (as previous studies have indicated), but rather that medical marijuana use at home (or in other non-driving scenarios) may in fact alter those patients’ use of alcohol. In other words, medicinal cannabis consumers – including younger adult drivers in their late teens and 20s – are smoking more pot and drinking less booze.


Professor Rees told the Denver Post when medi-pot is legalized in a given state, there is an average corresponding 12 percent decline in alcohol-related auto fatalities and specifically a 19 percent drop in the auto wreck death rate of those in their 20s. One possibility the study did not address – if these people are driving with the same frequency now that they were before medical marijuana legalization and if they are smoking more pot instead of drinking, that suggests they are potentially driving while stoned and experiencing less fatalities, which would further substantiate the aforementioned studies (1983 and 1992 in the U.S., 1998 in Australia and 2000 from the UK) that do indicate people actually tend to drive more cautiously when stoned.


Regardless of that argument, this new study posits that with easier, safer and legal access to medi-pot, people in those states are drinking and driving less. We seem to find a new benefit of medical marijuana every day and here is yet another.

Bills Would Outlaw Cell Phone Driving In Texas

If you've read this blog for very long then you probably know I am against cell phone driving and have written several posts calling for it to be outlawed across the nation.   Anyone who has driven for any length of time will have many stories of people driving dangerously while talking or texting on their cell phone.   And the National Transportation Safety Administration has produced evidence that cell phone drivers are as dangerous to the general public as drunk drivers.

There is little argument over this.   Almost everyone knows that cell phone driving is very dangerous -- for everyone else, that is.   The crazy thing about this is that while people know it is dangerous, nearly everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule -- while other people pose a risk to others, far too many people think they are able to drive while talking or texting on a cell phone without posing any risk to others.   It's like drunk drivers -- I never heard one say they were too drunk to drive (although they will admit that drinking and driving is dangerous).

That is why I believe that new laws are necessary to ban cell phone driving.   These people, like drunk drivers, will not stop this dangerous activity until they are forced to do so by the police.   Fortunately, it looks like at least some legislators are paying attention to this problem.   State Representative Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) says,   "I am trying again because this has gotten out of hand and it has become a road safety hazard.   People talking or texting while driving are causing accidents, or, putting themselves and others at risk of serious injury or even death."

Rep. Menendez has introduced a bill (HB 37) for consideration when the new legislative session begins next month.   State Senator Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) has introduced a companion bill in the state senate (SB 119).   Uresti says,   "Studies have found that texting can impair a driver as much as being drunk, so an outright ban just makes common sense."

Menendez has introduced his bill in the last three Texas legislative sessions, and the bills all died without ever getting out of committee.   He believes the bill will have a better chance in the coming session because there has been a lot of recent negative publicity about cell phone driving and a larger percentage of the population now sees this as a dangerous activity.   A recent Texas Transportation Institute survey showed that 52% of Texans would support a law banning cell phone use while driving.

The question now is whether cell phone companies will lobby against the bills.   Menendez believes he can convince them this is not an anti-cell phone issue, but a safety issue.   And he might have a point.   Some cell phone companies, like AT&T, already have programs discouraging use of their cell phones while driving.

I still have serious doubts about whether the Republican-dominated legislature will pass such a law, but I hope I'm wrong.   A law banning cell phone driving could save a lot of lives and injuries.

Gov. Should Disable Cell Phones In Cars

There's no doubt that one of the most dangerous things a driver can do these days is talk on the cell phone while driving.   I think most people realize that -- at least for other people.   For some reason, while people know this is unsafe many seem to think it is only unsafe for other people to do it -- but they are somehow magically immune to the dangers themselves.

An example of this is when teen drivers are asked what should happen to drunk drivers.   The vast majority says the law should penalize drunk drivers very severely.   However, these same teens don't think the law should ban texting while driving.   Most of them seem convinced that they can do it safely.   This is in spite of the fact that several studies have shown cell phone use while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving (and texting is even worse).

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Raymond LaHood, says that cell phone distracted drivers killed about 5,500 people last year.   In addition, about a half-million people were injured.   Those are minimum figures.   Paul Atchley, a scientist at the University of Kansas who has studied the phenomenon, believes the actual figures are probably much higher.

The sad part is that all of these deaths and injuries can be prevented.   If people would just stay off their cell phones and pay attention to their driving these needless deaths and injuries would not happen.

I know there are many people who think they must use their phones while driving.   They will tell us that their fast-paced life demands it, or their business demands it.   Nonsense.   Life went on and business got done before cell phones were invented, and it would if they weren't used while a person is driving.

Some states have outlawed hand-held cell phones while driving.   This makes it look like something is being done about the problem when nothing is actually being accomplished.   The danger from using a cell phone while driving is from the distraction it causes the driver -- not from the phone being held in a hand or not.

I have often thought something should be done technologically to stop cell phone driving.   Now it looks like the government is considering the same thing.   LaHood says the government is considering requiring cars to have a technology that would disable cell phones.   The cell phone would be disabled when the car reaches a certain speed (possibly as measured by cell phone towers).

I think this is an excellent idea.   This would still allow cell phone use in an emergency by just pulling over to the side of the road, but would prevent use while the car is moving.   I know there will be efforts to defeat this by some tech geeks, but I still think it is an idea worth trying.

Just remember, the life that is saved could be someone you love.

Driving While Hispanic Is NOT A Crime

A week or so ago, Ernestina Mondragon was driving in Dallas and made an illegal u-turn. She was ticketed for that and found guilty by a judge. There is no problem with that. She broke a traffic law and will have to pay a fine.

The problem is with another ticket she was given by the Dallas police officer. She was also ticketed for driving a car without being able to speak English. I am amazed that this ticket was given. Even most ordinary citizens in Texas know that there is no law requiring an ability to speak English to be able to drive. How could a policeman, who is supposed to know the law, make such an egregious mistake?

The judge did dismiss the ridiculous ticket, and Dallas Police Chief Kunkle apologized for the patrolman's mistake. The bad thing is that Chief Kunkle also admitted that the Dallas Police Department has issued 38 of these tickets in the last three years!

Let me make that clear. The Dallas Police Department has for the last three years issued more than one ticket a month for a driver not being an English-speaker! What is going on? What is the cause of so many of these illegal tickets being issued?

Either the Dallas Police Department is failing to properly train their officers on the law, or there are some immigrant-hating racist officers in the department trying to enforce their own personal brand of justice. I hope it is the former, because that can and should be fixed with better training. The latter is far more troublesome.

NOTE -- There is a law requiring drivers of public transportation (buses and taxis) to be able to speak English. But this law does not extend to (and was never meant to extend to) ordinary drivers in their own cars.

Outlawing Texting Is Not Enough

It looks like Congress finally wants to do something about dangerous cell phone use by drivers. Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) and Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina) have just unveiled legislation they are introducing in the Senate.

The legislation would force states to outlaw cell phone texting and e-mailing while a person is driving a motor vehicle. Any state that does not outlaw this activity will lose 25% of their annual highway funding until they do.

Schumer said, "When drivers have their eyes on their cellphones instead of the road, the results can be dangerous and even deadly." Of course, he is right. The only flaw I see in the law proposed by these senators is that it doesn't go far enough.

The law needs to ban ALL cell phone use while driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is equally as dangerous as driving witha blood-alcohol content of 0.08 (which is labeled as drunk driving in most states). It is three times more dangerous than that when dialing.

Some people think the hands-free units solve that problem. According to the NHTSA, the danger is not in holding the phone, but in the conversation itself. People get so involved in the conversation that they lose their focus on driving. How can we justify outlawing drunk driving, when we continue to allow this activity which is just as dangerous.

The fact is that all cell phone use (talking, texting, e-mailing, cruising internet, etc.) is too dangerous to allow drivers to do. Why then, does Congress want to only half-do the ban that is needed? Would doing the job right cost them some phone company lobbying dollar?

(Cartoon is by Jeff Stahler in The Columbus Dispatch)

Cell Phones And Driving Don't Mix

Finally, someone is speaking out on the danger of talking on a cell phone while driving, and asking that the practice be outlawed. I can't believe it has taken so long. All anyone has to do is drive around for a few hours in any American city, and they will see driver after driver doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things because their mind is on the phone conversation they are having, and not on their driving.

The woman who was driving the car pictured above was killed because some fool was too busy talking on a cell phone to pay attention to his driving. This woman is only one of many victims of cell phone driving. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), there are 2,600 deaths and over 12,000 serious injuries every year that are caused by driver's talking on cell phones.

And those could be very conservative numbers. There are 270 million cell phone owners in the United States, and the NSC estimates that 80% talk on their phone while driving. Where's the outrage? Are we only outraged by the dangerous things that we don't do ourselves?

Some states are mandating that drivers use "hands free" devices while driving and talking on their cell phones, but that has little effect on the problem. As NSC's chief executive Janet Froetscher says, "It's not just what you're doing with your hands — it's that your head is in the conversation and so your eyes are not on the road."

After examining more than 50 scientific studies, the NSC has reached the conclusion that driving while talking on a cell phone (even hands free) makes the driver four times as likely to be involved in a traffic accident. That figure is comparable to driving while drunk!

We have made drunk driving a crime and continuously wage campaigns against it. But amazingly, most of us don't seem to be worried at all about the 216 million drivers who are every bit as dangerous as the drunk drivers. That strikes me as being very stupid.

If we're going to wage war against the drunk drivers (and I have no problem with that), shouldn't we also outlaw talking on a cell phone while driving, since they are just as dangerous?

The Governor's Highway Safety Association and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety both agree with the NSC that using a cell phone while driving is dangerous and based on the research should be banned.

How much more evidence is needed? How many more lives must be lost? Isn't it time to act?