Michael Moynihan: A sense of driver entitlement — where the streets have no laws

No-idling zones for schools would help tackle emissions, as well as no-law zones which seem to exist at schools first thing in the morning and at the end of lessons in the afternoon. 

The inconvenience of careless and ignorant parking is usually temporary and relatively harmless, but anything which makes driving more dangerous needs to be dealt with. File picture: Larry Cummins

Last week I wrote about air quality in Cork, specifically, how bad it can be. Along the way I learned about the dangers posed by wood-burning stoves and Cork’s unique bowl-like topography, two contributing factors to the problem.

The pollution caused by cars — non-electric cars, at least — is another contributing factor, something that’s known to us all. 

Before the introduction of the NCT a few years back the pollution caused by motor vehicles was hard to avoid, with the occasional car laying down a smoke show more appropriate to a Black Sabbath concert than a rapid take-off at a green light.

Coincidentally, this week a reader pointed me towards a report from a couple of years back in the Guardian which cited various proposals to improve air quality in England, one of which was extremely specific: it called for local authorities to introduce no-idling zones outside schools and hospitals.

There were others, such as the imposition of more congestion charges and low emission zones, and the development of a vehicle-charging infrastructure for electric cars, but the no-idling zone for schools caught my eye for a couple of reasons.

Anything which reduces damaging emissions is welcome, obviously, but my chief reason for fixating on no-idling zones is that no-law zones seem to exist at schools first thing in the morning and at the end of lessons in the afternoon. 

In my experience these brief periods often resemble a scene from The Purge, the film which imagines an America where all crime is legal for 24 hours once a year.

Or for 10 to 15 minutes twice a day during the school year, to give the Irish version.

Pleas from school authorities

The primary school which is about 50m from my front door is a good case in point. Despite repeated pleas from the school authorities, the presence of a dedicated lollipop lady, and well-marked double yellow lines and traffic lights, any morning I pass at the optimum time there are . . . how to put this?

Manifestations of utter selfishness? Delusions of grandeur or delusions of driving competence? A belief that all things in the universe incline specifically towards gratifying one person’s (parking) needs?

In the years my research assistants have been going to the school I have seen many representative examples of the above categories of behaviour.

Highlights include but are certainly not limited to: people parking on the corner, obstructing the cars behind them, but putting on their hazard lights as a cure for all ills; other vehicles then overtaking said parked car, turning blindly around the corner into oncoming traffic; people parking at the school gate — literally — while safe, ample parking is available, and visible, 20 yards away; people rolling in their SUVs past the lollipop lady and tiny schoolchildren already halfway across the road; people parking in a designated handicapped place across from the school; the list goes on.

(And not all of them drivers, either: Cyclists mounting the footpath to scatter schoolchildren is another highlight, though not quite as entertaining as the man who took to cycling down the footpath with his kids because ‘it was too dangerous to cycle on the road’ with them. The five- and six-year-olds they forced off the path onto the same road were presumably better equipped to deal with vehicular collisions.)

Informal consultation with friends and family in other parts of the country suggests this is an issue which is by no means confined to Cork, but because it happens in front of your columnist five mornings a week, it has particular relevance.

Careless driving

Nothing sharpens your awareness of the dangers posed by careless driving more than seeing an SUV one screech to a halt, its driver dropping smartphone and coffee cup, a yard or two from one of the smaller inhabitants of the First Communion class who has just stepped out onto the road

Unsurprisingly, this school — Our Lady of Lourdes NS — is campaigning for a Puffin Crossing to ensure the safety of its pupils, which is to be welcomed (and in the interests of fairness it should be pointed out that Cork City Council’s roads department supports the move).

After all, the inconvenience of careless and ignorant parking is usually temporary and relatively harmless, but anything which makes driving more dangerous needs to be dealt with.

Unfortunately, there’s very little that can be done to remove the sense of entitlement many drivers enjoy once they turn the key in the ignition. 

The insulation from consideration of others while sealed in one’s climate-controlled cocoon, preferred music playing and favourite beverage to hand, is a matter of psychological fact (on that point consult Tom Vanderbilt’s book Traffic, which will force you to confront your own behaviour at the wheel.)

As a consequence the focus has to be on counter-measures, but the good news is that counter-measures have been proven to work. Last year a California State Senator, Susan Rubio introduced a bill in the State legislature to reduce car speeds near schools but advocated going a stage further than simply putting up road signs: she pushed for speed cameras at schools.

Rubiou provided some compelling arguments to back up her suggestion, pointing out that in jurisdictions such as New York City and Seattle, for example, speeding in school zones had been reduced by 63% and nearly 50% respectively, after speed safety cameras were installed, while in Mesa, Arizona, when the School Zone Speed Safety Program was introduced there was a 36% reduction in collisions resulting in serious injury collisions from 2007 to 2013.

As we’ve broadened out the discussion, it has to be acknowledged that people’s behaviour has changed in recent years also. If you are next or near a secondary school as pupils enter and exit you’ll see what safety experts call distracted walking, as the kids check in on their smartphones to see just how Taylor Swift put manners on Damon Albarn or some such beef.

This is not just a matter of opinion about the youth of today. The website safekids.org carried out research in the US which showed that on the kids’ side, distracted walking and crossing at unsafe areas is on the rise.

Significantly, however, its studies also showed unsafe drop-off or pick-up behaviour by one driver in three: a sobering proportion of motorists at a school. If one-third of those driving kids to schools are guilty of unsafe behaviour then the wonder is that we don’t have more accidents.

The safekids.org site’s recommendations include enforcing school collection drop-off policies, setting and enforcing speed limits, educating parents (drivers) and kids (pedestrians) about distracted walking and driving — and recommends installing "proven interventions like crosswalks, speed limits, visible signs, and traffic lights” to improve safety.

There are costs involved here, obviously enough. Paint, speed cameras, traffic signs, lights: All of those need money, both for installation and maintenance. 

The obvious question is whether you think a child’s life is worth that cost; I only hope the answer is equally obvious.