Does being a pilot make you a better driver?

[bobbysamd]

Flying to improve driving

I haven't read every post, but I would say that learning to fly has helped my driving. Flying increased my appreciation of speed management while driving, e.g., maintaining a constant speed with cruise control or whatever, anticipating red lights and letting the car slow for them. As a result, my drive is smoother, I get through more intersections and I'm probably easier on my engine and brakes. I also found that adhering to speed limits lets me get through more signaled intersections, probably because the lights' timing is tied to the speed limit.

Scanning for traffic while flying transferred to me keeping my head on a swivel while driving, checking the mirrors constantly, thinking several lane changes and turns ahead, maintaining situational awareness, etc., as opposed to the tunnel-visioned, blindered, last-minute lane-change morons with whom I must share the road.

Learning the regs increased my appreciation of knowing and adhering to the rules of the road, and increased my disdain of those drivers who don't them and/or routinely bust them. You encounter quite a few of those drivers in Denver, where running red lights has been raised from a science to an art form and back again.

Finally, too bad there is not a dedicated NOTAM service for local driving, especially here, where there is so much interstate road construction happening. The TV stations broadcast overnight road closures, but virtually nothing about daytime closures. We need RSSs (Road Service Stations).

Drive safe, all.

 

[Corona]

I used to think I wouldn't like to fly with someone who was a bad driver, but one friend who is a top-notch pilot simply hates to drive; hence, is not very good at it. Can't give very good directions to other drivers either, according to his wife.

I drive well & have good SA most of the time. I like using the psycho-speeders on the Interstate to run interference for me. You know, sweep the cops from under the bridge or whatever before I get there. I won't drive more than 5MPH over the limit, and only on highways/interstates.

I think the appropriate emphasis on getting drunk drivers off the road has reached ridiculous proportions. Someone with only 1 drink is not, IMHO, a great danger to the public. Someone who is an idiot when he drives is a danger whether drunk or sober.

C

 

[FN FAL]

Finally, too bad there is not a dedicated NOTAM service for local driving, especially here, where there is so much interstate road construction happening. The TV stations broadcast overnight road closures, but virtually nothing about daytime closures. We need RSSs (Road Service Stations).

Drive safe, all.

Most motorists don't know the laws in the state they are driving, much less the services available to them on the internet. Smart highways would only make them feel and look stupider...

 

[FN FAL]

I think the appropriate emphasis on getting drunk drivers off the road has reached ridiculous proportions. Someone with only 1 drink is not, IMHO, a great danger to the public. Someone who is an idiot when he drives is a danger whether drunk or sober.

You make good a point, but the law is definitions.

Lose the term, "drunk" driver and insert "impaired" driver.

What I think is funny, is my criminal law class thinks all men should be castrated and that all cars should have breathalysers in them. They are harping on this case in Kali where the old man ran over the people in the open air street market a while back.

What they don't know is, if they establish a level of "impairment" for age...then they will have to establish a level of "impairment" accross the board. In fact, they would have to establish a level of competancy...which would mean all drivers would have to get in a Level D sim for cars and prove their competancy.

When they find out that there are a lot of people that can only demonstrate proficiency to drive at the same level of skill that a "skilled" .15 BAC driver can demonstrate...the shiat is going to hit the fan.

Avbug struck a great point regarding DUI check points. Most cops cant tell if you are at the new lower BAC's when they see you driving down the road. Rather than wait for probable cause, like weaving, driving to fast, driving to slow, driving exactly the speed limit or having a light out above your license plate...they would rather just stop everybody and take a look see. Meanwhile, a whole freaking shift of featherbedders is sitting in one place while some ladys vagina is getting violated by a rapist, some Elmer Fudd is getting mugged and another house is getting burgled. Did I mention most burglaries are unsolved?

Meanwhile, some joker with a .04 is getting a ticket for "impaired driving" and probably wouldn't be any worse than the average soccer mom at handling a "situation" on the road, like stopping for a light, yeilding the right of way, driving the speed limit, staying out of the ditch.

Sober drivers hit deer, run over kids chasing balls, and get run over by sleeping semi truck drivers all the time...yet MADD don't give a rats ass about them. Not only that, but MADD don't give a rats ass about people that kill with cell phones in their hands either....hmmmm?

 

[FN FAL]

Since we're talking definitions and "code" words...let's have a contest regarding the phrase, "alcohol related"... You could win 20,000 bucks...better than WIA money...hell, it's better than a college scholarship!

NMA's challenge to MADD

by Eric Peters</EM>

How many people would you guess are killed each year in the United States by drunk drivers? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the figure is roughly 18,000 annually (17,970 in 2002). That's about 42 percent of all highway fatalities -- and works out to a drunk driving death "every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day," every day of the year, as a NHTSA radio ad put it. That's a lot of drunk driving -- even in a nation of 280 million people. But is it an accurate portrayal?

According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), the numbers trotted out by NHTSA are wildly exaggerated -- puffed up by including deaths where alcohol was not the cause but merely present. In some cases, the driver may not have been drinking at all -- as when an inebriated pedestrian strays into a busy street and is struck by a vehicle. NHTSA defines (and lists) such a fatality as "alcohol related" -- but that’s not the same thing as caused by drunk driving. Similarly, an inebriated passenger riding home in a car that happens to be struck by another car running a red light is not the victim of drunk driving -- although NHTSA lumps such fatalities in with all the rest as "alcohol-related." That, in turn, morphs into "drunk driving" -- but it's specious to lump the two together.

By equating "alcohol-related" with "drunk driving," NMA argues, NHTSA deliberately distorts the extent of the problem with impaired motorists, creating an impression of widespread boozing and driving that isn't factually supportable -- but which is used with great effectiveness for propaganda purposes by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to further what has become a crusade, not merely against drunk driving, but against drinking -- period.

To back this assertion up, NMA has announced it will award $20,000 to the first person who can substantiate the claim by NHTSA that 17,970 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2002. The contest is being held in cooperation with two other groups -- getMADD.com and RIDL -- who also take issue with NHTSA’s figures and with increasingly radical anti-drinking groups such as MADD, whom they believe have taken a legitimate issue and run amok with it. Going after dangerous drunks has, they argue, become a neo-prohibitionist crusade that is seeking to continuously "define drunkenness down" -- even to the point of absurdity, putting responsible Americans who drink socially in the same category as the small minority of irresponsible people who drink to excess and then get behind the wheel of a car.

As evidence of this, NMA and others opposed to MADD point out that the group seeks the adoption of maximum allowable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level significantly lower than the current .08 percent BAC that defines "drunk driving" in most states -- .06 or even .04 BAC, a level that can be reached after as little as a single drink over dinner. Former MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee has argued publicly that "many people are dangerously impaired at even .05 BAC" -- a level that can be reached after a little more than one beer on an empty stomach. If BAC laws are lowered beyond .06, as MADD continues to press for, it will mean that anyone who has had even one drink will be in peril of arrest for "drunk driving." But there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that such a person is impaired -- let alone "drunk."

The NMA contest should settle this debate clearly. If NHTSA and MADD are right and nearly 20,000 Americans are indeed killed each year by drunk drivers, it ought to be easy enough to back up. But if NMA is right and the NHTSA claim can’t be supported with verifiable scientific data -- for example, case by case evidence that each fatality was caused by a driver with at least a .08 BAC level -- then we know the statistics have been jiggled with to further a political agenda.

Here are the contest's four rules:

1. Twenty thousand dollars will be paid to the first person who can document that 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or other drugs in 2002.
2. The definition of "impaired" is the NHTSA definition stated on the NHTSA web site: "Impaired driving can be defined as a reduction in the performance of critical driving tasks due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs," substituting the words "is defined" for "can be defined" in their definition.
3. "Proof" of this claim must include verifiable data that clearly proves 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs.
4. The names, facts and figures must be from a recognized source.

It's as simple -- or as hard -- as that. Either we've got a real problem that needs to be dealt with, or we've got an increasingly politicized government agency aiding a latter-day witch hunt.

To learn more, or submit an entry, check out the National Motorists Association at www.motorists.org



Eric Peters, a member of the National Motorists Association, is a nationally-syndicated automotive columnist. He has also written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, the Detroit Free Press, and the Washington Times.

References and Readings

 

[Corona]

Sober drivers hit deer, run over kids chasing balls, and get run over by sleeping semi truck drivers all the time...yet MADD don't give a rats ass about them. Not only that, but MADD don't give a rats ass about people that kill with cell phones in their hands either....hmmmm?

I think this is the key: I hate to rip on MADD, since they ultimately have done a service to society, but they now have become a victim of their own success. With society now more than aware of the consequences of severe impaired drivers, what is now their mission? The simple answer is: Push their previous success to the extreme. It is the choice between that or extinction. I mean, if the intoxicated driver is gone, what is the point of MADD's existence?

MADD is now pushing their point beyond what is reasonable. I hope the reasonable middle of society can push back.

C

 

[FN FAL]

every dog, must have his day...

I think it's freaking hillarious...

Assistant D.A. charged with drunken driving

He had prosecuted man for driving lawn mower while intoxicated

By PETER MALLER
[email protected]

Posted: Nov. 15, 2004

West Bend - About 15 months after after making news while prosecuting a man who drove a lawn mower while intoxicated, Washington County Assistant District Attorney Peter J. Cannon has been charged with drunken driving.

[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]What can I say? I feel terrible. I screwed up. I'm ashamed and embarrassed. I apologize to everybody in the county. [/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]- Peter J. Cannon,
drunken driving defendant and Washington County Assistant District Attorney
[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1] Prosecutors are people, and we all make mistakes, and all people are held accountable for their mistakes.
[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]- Todd Martens,
Washington County District Attorney
[/size][/font]
Cannon, 51, was arrested Oct. 22 in Fox Point after a police officer observed his 1997 Pontiac Grand Am operating with a flat tire and crossing the center line twice, according to a police report.

Cannon was handcuffed and placed in a squad car after failing a field sobriety test about 2:30 a.m., the report says. He was later given a ticket alleging he operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He also had a blood alcohol content of 0.15, almost double the legal proof of intoxication in Wisconsin - which brought a separate charge.

Cannon, who was alone in the vehicle, surrendered his driver's license at the scene and was issued a temporary driving permit, according to the report. He was released into the custody of a friend, Patricia Cataldo of Milwaukee, the report says.

"What can I say? I feel terrible. I screwed up. I'm ashamed and embarrassed. I apologize to everybody in the county," Cannon said Monday.

Cannon said he will plead guilty to both civil charges today in Fox Point Municipal Court and pay a $705 penalty. His attorney has advised him against discussing details of the case, he said.

The report says Cannon told Fox Point police Sgt. Christopher Freedy, the officer who arrested him, that he "had a couple of drinks" with a friend in downtown Milwaukee before being stopped, the report says.

Calling it a confidential personnel matter, Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens, Cannon's boss, would not say whether any disciplinary action was being contemplated.

"Prosecutors are people, and we all make mistakes, and all people are held accountable for their mistakes," Martens said.

Martens said any prosecutor who has been convicted of drunken driving would generally not be disqualified from prosecuting such cases in the future. But Martens made it clear he was not referring specifically to Cannon's ability to handle such matters.

County prosecutors follow strict guidelines for recommending sentences to judges, and rarely enter into plea agreements in charges involving drunken driving, Martens said.

Last year, Cannon prosecuted Barry S. Davis of Hartford, who was arrested on suspicion of operating a riding lawn mower while intoxicated.

When Davis appeared in court, he told the judge, "I could walk faster than my lawn mower can go." But Cannon argued that the case against Davis couldn't be ignored.

"If you operate (a lawn mower) on the highways, you're subject to the drunken driving laws," Cannon told the judge.

In a plea agreement, Davis was eventually charged with operating an all terrain vehicle while intoxicated, and paid a $716 forfeiture.

Cannon said on Monday his own behavior was inexcusable. He said he cooperated with law enforcement officials when he was stopped in Fox Point.

"I don't want to blame stress," he said. "I don't want to blame anybody. I broke the law. I'm guilty as hell."

According to the police report, Sgt. Christopher Freedy first observed Cannon's vehicle as it approached an intersection at Green Tree Road. Freedy said he noticed that the left rear tire of the car was flat and there appeared to be fresh recent damage to the left rear bumper, the report says.

When Freedy approached the vehicle, he saw Cannon drinking "a clear liquid from a water bottle," according to the report. Freedy said that Cannon's eyes were bloodshot and "an odor of intoxicants (was) being emitted from the vehicle," the report says.

Cannon told Freedy that he "was unaware of the tire damage," the report says. He also "denied having any recent accidents or damage to his vehicle," the report says

 

[Mr. Cole]

Take a look at the professions with the lowest accident rates.


Dave

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/pf/autos/bad_drivers/index.htm

 

[F16TJ]

I think so. But I think it is dependant on the pilot.

In my mind, pilots are more cognizant of when they need fuel so you never see them on the side of the road walking with a gas can. I also think pilots check the oil in their car engine more than other "civilians". I think pilots pay stricter attention to their car's maintainance schedule and I think pilots check their tire pressure more often than other drivers.

As far as driving goes itself...it depends. A pilot like jarhaid probably thinks that driving exactly the speed limit in the left lane of an interstate while being totally oblivious to the tandem truck he's been next to for the last ten miles, is a mark of a good driver. While others may argue getting up and around the semi and taking a place in the right lane would be the sign of a good driver...even if it means kicking it in the ass a little bit.

I guess it depends on if you are talking a good "passive" driver or a good "re-active" driver.

This one made me laugh. Just this morning on my way to work I passed a car on the side of the road with its blinkers on. As I passed it, I saw two USAF pilots in their flight suits looking at the front of the car. Couldn't get over to the right lane since I was doing 70+ IRS passing a line of Starbuck's drinking commuters doing 60 IRS. Looped around at the first available spot and went back to see if my fellow aviators needed any help. Pulled up behind their car and asked if they needed help. The CA, I assume, stated that they just ran out of GAS and that they had assistance bringing them more petrol. I promptly turned on my turn signal, waited for a break in the traffic and merged back onto the road, acccelerating to the flow of traffic.

Best part about it is that the two pilots were from the 89th Wing...home of Air Force 1. Doh!