Ah, yes, traffic school-that wonderful alternative to points on your license. It's the only answer for many of us when it comes to the awful choice between paying the court once or paying the insurance actuaries forever. However, it's usually the lesser of the two evils and, regrettably, the choice most of us make.
For those of you not familiar with traffic school and those of you lucky enough to live in a state that doesn't permit such worthless propaganda, here's the deal. In California, when you're convicted of a moving violation, you've got two options: Pay the full fine, accept that the appropriate number of points will be added to your driving record and get ready for your insurance rates to skyrocket. Or, if you haven't been convicted of a moving violation in the last 18 months, most courts will allow you to pay the fine and for an additional fee that goes to the state and the service provider, take a "traffic school" course. I use the term "school" lightly.
Traffic schools come in many different formats in California and, I suspect, in most other states. Here, we're allowed to go to a weekend class, which usually consumes an entire day, or take the course on video, over the Internet, on CD-ROM or use a self-taught textbook version.
I recently had several people close to me opt to take traffic school instead of adding the points on their license. During that time, I had the opportunity to take a close look at some of the materials. I managed to get my hands on the two-and-a-half hour videotape version and the 130-page textbook course, both of which meet the California Department of Motor Vehicles' curriculum requirements. If you're a regular reader of "The Slip Angle," you know how I feel about the California DMV, its testing and its authority over drivers in general. I knew this would be fun.
I anxiously sat down with the book and video and let the learning begin. Not surprising, I was quickly amazed and enlightened by the many facts about how unsafe our roads and highways truly are. The propaganda was as impressive as it was unrelenting and blatantly inaccurate.
Mixed with usual safety brigade song and dance about how speed kills and how every vehicle is a loaded gun were some of most amazing fallacies about automotive dynamics I've ever seen.
Let's start with braking distance. Both traffic courses say it takes more than 300 feet to stop from 60 mph when taking into account perception time, reaction time and braking distance. The truth is that braking distance is dependent on so many factors, it's probably not worth discussing anyway. But, they've got a captive audience and time to waste, so why not?
Here's why not: The longest distance it's taken any vehicle Sport Compact Car has tested to stop from 60 mph is 140 feet-considerably shorter than the 180 feet traffic school claims for the braking distance by itself. (This is ignoring the distance traveled while deciding what to do and actually hitting the brake pedal). However, a fully loaded tractor trailer or a soccer mom in an SUV full of screaming toddlers could take more than twice that distance, making the discussion even more pointless.
Perhaps the best example of ineptitude in traffic courses comes when the writers attempt to solve a problem on paper or in video that they've never actually solved from behind the wheel. My personal favorite from the two samples I had were the sections detailing how to stop a skid. Translated into car guy terms, that's how to recover from an oversteer situation. The video was the best. It had three simple steps, as follows:1) Steer toward the rear tires.2) Pump the brakes.3) Try to go straight.
Amazing. Not to mention dangerous. How exactly does one steer toward the rear tires anyway? What about pumping the brakes? Don't most modern cars have ABS? Even if not, the last thing to do when correcting a slide is to further lighten the rear of the car by using the brakes. And how do you "try to go straight"? How about steer and look where you want the car to go? Isn't that simple?
The text was slightly less offensive, yet described a completely different solution. According to the book, the first step necessary to correct a slide is to shift to neutral or depress the clutch. Huh? I've never seen anyone drive out of a slide without using power. Taking that option out the equation by compromising the drive wheels' ability to put power to the ground is a solution that could only be reached by the safety brigade. Naturally, any solution that involves using the throttle must be a bad idea. These guys need a lesson in physics, as taught by World Rally Champion Colin McRae.
The second step was quite a revelation: "Aim and steer in the desired direction." Wow. Almost sounds logical. The nonsense isn't over yet. The next sentence said; "continue aiming ahead at the center lane." OK, what happened to steer where you want to go? I liked that solution better. It didn't involve any head-on collisions.
The problem here, as usual, is simple. It all comes down to money. The state gets more of it if we suck up its ridiculous agenda under the guise of making us all better drivers. Wouldn't it be nice if that were really the result? Perhaps if there were some real education, backed by actual facts in these so-called traffic school classes, that could actually happen. It's certainly not right now.