Such assertion, of course, begs the ever vexing question about, as journalist Malcolm Gladwell called it in an excerpt from his speech, “Well, Well: An evening of dialogue on social change,” at the University of Toronto on May 13^th, “the tension between knowing and doing.” Put another way, it begs the question why such universal knowledge about speeding and impairment is not translating into greatly reduced fatalities and injuries from crashes.

 

One reason may be the distinction between knowing the law and fully appreciating the nature of the risks it is addressing. We know what the speed limits. Do we think about the dramatic difference an even 5-km/hr increase in speed can make? Driving within the limit takes focus and patience. Congestion and, conversely, wide, lightly traveled roads both offer inducements to ignoring or forgetting about the speed limit.

 

Similarly we know about the .08 legal limit for alcohol consumption, but not necessarily how much alcohol it takes us to reach it. And as with speeding, people may find many inducements to ignoring or forgetting about it as well.

 

Carelessness about obeying the law regardless of the inherent utility or rightness of its purpose is a complex problem. The functioning of democratic societies governed by the rule of law depends on the majority of citizens, hopefully respecting, but at the least obeying, the law.

 

The careless minority runs afoul of law enforcement…but not always. Enforcement of traffic law is, despite the considerable cost, as traffic safety expert Leonard Evans describes it, “capricious, forging an inappropriate and harmful bond between average citizens and high-risk drivers.” He says that because the probability of detection is so low, “those who receive tickets generally consider themselves victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than admitting to themselves that their behaviour posed any safety threat. Average citizens often regard frequent violators to be just like themselves, but with worse luck, rather than the ongoing threats to them and their families that they in fact are.” The percentage of individuals in whom carelessness shades into psychopathology is low but represents a disproportionate high risk.

 

Still, Mr. Evans and Mr. Gladwell both argue for reframing the purpose of law enforcement as a way of changing attitudes. If traffic law is perceived as being about prescribing responsibility and preventing harm and not just government intervention or raising revenue, then the likelihood of greater compliance, even on the part of a careless minority, may increase. We can expect to see a big change in accident statistics when the type of moral indignation we now see in relation to smoking, is focused on careless driving.