Lessons in Physics and Civics...

Any physicist will recognize that formula, it is the formula for kinetic energy.  Physics is physics, it doesn't know how to adjust for societal norms, or believe in personal rights.  It just is.  Therefore, those of us who do care about societal norms or personal rights need to take into account that not everything in our universe does.

About a year ago, a woman was sentenced to 6 years for hitting and killing a cyclist who was stopped by the side of the road.  What has come out from the trial is that:

• She was driving with her vision impaired by her Diabetes, to which she had also lost a leg.
• She hit something that she claimed she couldn't recognize.
• After striking that something (which shattered her windshield) she did not stop to determine what she had hit, but drove on.

A number of people have taken sides in this case, and my interest here is not to "pile on" or take sides in this particular case.  Whether I feel justice has been done in this case is not the topic of this particular bit of writing.

More recently, a cyclist in England was hit and badly injured, however the occupants didn't stop to help, telling the cyclist that the sight of him would be too upsetting for the children in the car.

Obviously, as a cyclist, I find this a bit disturbing, particularly when the news is coming from England, a relatively "cyclist friendly" country.  But I'm not here to talk about that either.

What I want to talk about is the difference between "rights" and "privileges".  It is my opinion that a significant cause of cyclist deaths and injuries, and many of the deaths and injuries relating to the automobile in general, come from the fact that we have come to assume that the privilege of driving an automobile is a right.

In the case of the tragedy from a year ago, a lot of the discussion has revolved around whether she should have been driving.  Many of those who have argued in favor of leniency for this particular driver (and others) based on her disability and/or her need to be able to get around seem to be arguing from the position that a need or desire for transportation equates to a right to drive.

In order to bring a bit of perspective to the question of a "right" to drive a car, I'd like to invoke that formula at the top of the article.  I'm going to phrase the discussion in terms of the amount of kinetic energy you are responsible for controlling safely every time you get behind the wheel, and make a comparison that I think is particularly telling.

Let's start with some not-unreasonable figures: a 3,000 pound vehicle at 35 miles per hour.  If you click on the link above, you'll see that a Toyota Camry weighs in at just about 3,200, so 3,000 pounds is pretty conservative.

Kinetic Energy is often expressed in foot-pounds of force.  Just for consistency, we'll start by converting miles per hour to feet per second:

35 x 5280 = 184,800 feet/hour

60 x 60 seconds / hour = 3,600

184,800 feet / 3600 seconds = 51.5 feet per second.

Back to our formula:  

• Velocity in feet per second needs to be squared, so our 51.3 feet per second v becomes 2,635 v^2.
• Mass in pounds needs to be divided in half, so our 3,000 pounds of m becomes 1,500 1/2m. 
• Finally, we multiply 1,500 of 1/2m by our 2,635 v^2 to get 3,547,500 foot-pounds of kinetic energy that has to be controlled every second.

But wait, 3,547,500 foot pounds sounds like a lot, but really, that's a pretty small unit of energy, so something over 3 million isn't really so much to expect be controlled, right?

OK, let's compare it to something that society does insist be tightly controlled, and increasingly is only willing to put in the hands of trained professionals to control it: a typical "assault rifle" round, the venerable .223 Remington.

According to the website "Bullet Energy Transfer and Wounding Mechanisms", a .223 Remington delivers 1,102 foot pounds of energy to its target.  Let's see now, that means that a Toyota Camry at 35 miles an hour is equal to...3,547,500 / 1,102.  Or:

3,219 rounds of .223 Remington

...or...

107 30-round high-capacity magazines

In 2011: 

• 32,367 people were killed by motor vehicles (See Table 3)
• 323 people were murdered with a rifle

Almost exactly 10 times the death rate from automobile accidents than rifle deaths.  Now I'm not going into a "right to keep and bear arms" argument (though I easily could) because that will distract form the main point of my comparison.

Let me ask, why are we more concerned about the quality and training of the people we let have access to "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" than the people we allow to drive?

Why do we allow ourselves to be so freaking careless behind the wheel?

I suspect it is because we have, as far as the automobile is concerned, confused privileges with rights.  In any other area, if you have to be licensed, there is an expectation of a high level of expertise, and particularly the ability to perform the task without injuring others. 

However, driving a car has become a sort of "rite of passage" for youths in our society, and the "rite" seems to have become confused with a "right".  There is no legal, moral or ethical right to drive.  But there is a legal, moral and ethical right to expect to be able to go about in safety, regardless of your mode of conveyance.

So, when you drive today, remember the truly incredible privilege you have, and the responsibility you bear.  Be careful with that kinetic energy, folks.