Motor mayhem
The BMJ for 11 May makes sombre reading, devoted
as it is to the carnage on our roads and the effects upon drivers of vehicles
as well as the poor pedal-cyclists and pedestrians who have less protection
than the motorists.
The BMJ asks how we can continue to remain
so complacent in the face of some 3,000 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries
every year. Yet there is little evidence that mos people take serious
heed, shrugging their shoulders and commenting that this is the price
we pay for civilised amenities and the ability to move about at will and
carry on our business and pleasure as if these were an integral part of
the life of the universe. Since we cannot imagine a world without our
cars, notwithstanding the toll which they bring in the shape of aerial
pollution, the desecration of the countryside and the vast demand upon
hospital services, we refuse to face the problem, which increases year
by year.
And, as the BMJ points out, we have to contend
with vast vested interests in world fuel supplies and manufacturers of
vehicles and their equipment. Megacorporations run roughshod over lesser
organisations and individuals, and insist that everything they do is for
the benefit of society.
Apart from business interests, we must recognise
that individuals take a dim view of any attempt to moderate their transport
behaviour. They think they have a right to go where they like, when they
like, how they like and at any speed they choose.
If we could rid ourselves of the illusion that we
are better off if we do everything in a hurry with no time to stand and
stare, if we could rid ourselves of the notion that time is money and
the devil takes the hindmost, the world would be a more enjoyable place.
Excessive speed goes hand in hand with the desire
to show off the capability of an automobile. People are regularly being
convicted of driving without care and attention, but the penalties exacted
can be ludicrouly inadequate.
Perhaps the only really effective penalty is the
withdrawal of a licence, but this rarely happens, since the shout goes
up that basic human rights are being abused if restrictions are placed
on car driving. It is argued that people cannot go about their business
or pleasure if they are denied a vehicle. What about those they mow down
in their madness?
Many people have little social conscience, but are
selfish. To forbid them to drive for a year for the first offence and
longer for subsequent ones might persuade them to reflect. To babble of
human rights does not apply. Before we can justly claim human rights we
must accept human and social obligations, surely? If a gun-owner is convicted
of using his weapon to commit an offence, he will lose his licence and
will not have it renewed until the authorities are convinced that he has
repented. What is so different about that more lethal modern weapon, the
motor car?
Back to Top
|
It
is well known that, in 1818, during a spell of bad weather while she was
staying in Byron's villa on the shore of Lake Geneva with her husband
Percy Bysshe Shelley and others, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote her
famous story, 'Frankenstein'. This was the tale of a young student, Victor
Frankenstein, who had taken a particular interest in alchemy and chemistry,
and by experimenting with the effect of galvanic shocks upon human remains
had created a murderous individual who was let loose on the vicinity with
dire results.