People ask why car culture is dying. It is being helped along by car journalists. They have become not far removed from the vapid-in-the-background guitar-strumming infomercials for insurance companies that tell you much you’ll save by buying something you neither need nor want but which they have managed to maneuver the government into forcing you to buy from them.
They are PR hacks, most of them.
Press kit regurgitators of every bromide of the Safety Cult that has just about killed off car culture.
Here, for example, is a cliche-riddled affirmation of everything the Cult embodies – purveyed by a car journalist (that sound you’re hearing is Brock Yates, who was a real car journalist, spinning in his coffin) named Sebastian Cenizo, who recently threw together an amen-brother encomium of the latest advance of the Safety Cult without any context that would enlighten his readers about the fact that it is the very same Safety Cult that created the “safety problem” he now urges be “solved” by even more Safetyism.
The piece is ostensibly about legislation afoot in New York being pushed by a Leftist car-hating state senator (a member of the Working Families Party, hint hint) by the name of Brad Hoylman that would require all new cars be fitted with electronic speed limiter systems – these are styled “assists,” so as to imply people need it. As in, something helpful rather than cloying and infantilizing. As if people needed assistance to avoid driving any faster than speed limits that are set deliberately low such as to turn almost every driver into a “speeder.”
But, you see, there is a need for such “assistance” – according to this Hoylman character and this Cenizo character.
The assertion of need is premised on upticking accidents and fatalities, reported by the federal Safety Apparat (NHTSA).
Here is where a car journalist such as Brock Yates would have begun his dissection. It would have begun by noting that “speed” doesn’t “kill.” It is incompetent driving – lethal at any speed – that does. And that Safetysim fosters more and worse by replacing expectations of attentiveness and competence behind the wheel with “technology” that is only “advanced” in the sense that fitting a diaper to an adult in order to catch the effluvia is a better option than teaching him continence as a child.
He repeats without comment – or rather, context – the fact that vehicles in general have gotten bigger and heavier and that outward visibility in many new vehicles is atrocious, which is given as one of the reasons why drivers are driving into and over things – even when they’re not “speeding” – notwithstanding all of the “advanced” Safety Technology that almost all new cars are fitted with already. Including beeping back-up cameras and closed circuit cameras, Lane Keep Assistance and Brake Assistance, to name just a few of them.
He does not explain to readers that one of the reasons why almost all new vehicles have these “assistance technologies” already is precisely because they have limited visibility – and the reason why they have limited visibility is because of Safety Apparat regulations (rear/side impact and roof crush “standards”) that have caused the front and rear ends of new cars to swell to Orca-like proportions and hoods and trunks to rise so high that is difficult to see over them and thus what may be in front (or behind) of them, without”assistance.”
“Clearly, we need more and better technology,” says Cenizo.
Really? And who is “we,” chief? Well, we is who will end up having to pay for the next slew of “advanced” Safety Technology the Safety Apparat will impose on all of us to crutch the problem created by the Safety Apparat. This Cenizo concedes. But then he says “You can’t put a price on safety.”
And thereby amens the foundational idiocy of the Safety Cult and its “vision zero” . . . vision. Which (like “zero COVID”) would shut down everything – at any cost – to “save even one life,” which is literally not possible without giving up living. And even then, no one is going to live forever.
Better visibility – you know, like cars used to have – would do a lot more to deal with the problem created by the Safety Apparat.
But that would entail undoing the “safety” regulations of the Safety Apparat – a solution that, apparently, has not occurred to Cenizo. Who is probably a Millennial who grew up strapped into a “Safety Seat” as part of his early induction-training as a member of the Safety Cult.
He goes on to copy-and-paste the well-known PR talking point of the Safety Apparat, such as that “Studies have shown that Intelligent Speed Limit Assistance alone can reduce traffic fatalities by 20 percent.”
And you can lose up to 20 pounds in one week if you eat these pills.
Which “studies” does he mean? No doubt the “studies” commissioned by the insurance industry, which funds such studies to support its government-enforced mulcting of drivers who are forced to buy insurance – and pay more for it – when they are caught “speeding,” irrespective of the safety of their driving (as evidenced by their lack of crashing).
“We must applaud Senator Hoylman for actually doing something about the state of road safety,” Cenizo says. We cannot “just sit back and accept the way things are.”
That sound you are hearing is Brock Yates’ fingernails trying to claw through the lid of his coffin, so as to pay this Cenizo dude a visit and explain to him that “we” must not “applaud” anything that furthers the advance of Safetyism by making cars less actually safe – and more expensive.
Not to mention as much fun to drive as it’s fun to wear a diaper – if you know how to use the bathroom.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)