Driving Entitlement
It's such a pedestrian thing; everyone drives, everyone thinks they have a right to drive. And everyone thinks they are extremely capable at doing it, as well. Motorists feel they have a right to drive. It is so utterly fundamental to modern-day life. We have committed ourselves to ferrying ourselves about everywhere - as a matter of practical necessity, as well as simple laziness. We cannot seem to imagine life without a car.
And like all activities one becomes accustomed to performing, driving is something that is human-motor-mechanically done. It's such a familiar thing, who even thinks about what they're doing? They just proceed, automatically. Having adapted oneself over the years to habits inimical to safety. Speeding recklessly, failing to observe road courtesy, let alone traffic signals, necessary to maintain a clockwork precision of motorized choreography.
Pedestrians have learned to have a care. Isn't everyone, at some times, a pedestrian? Shouldn't motorists recall that simple fact? That, if they're driving dangerously, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they are handling a potentially dangerous instrument, one that might maim or kill human beings? Theoretically we all do know that, but in a practical way it's a bloody nuisance, best ignored lest it interfere with our freedoms and entitlements.
Here's a 53-year-old Ottawa man, informed through a CT scan that he had a brain tumour. His family doctor and his family urged him to visit a specialist for further diagnosis. "I certainly didn't feel inclined to see a brain surgeon. I thought there was nothing wrong with my brain", Robert Mainwaring informed the court at a hearing of one count of careless driving.
He lived with his tumour for five years, not knowing what how it might be affecting him. Not, it would appear, noticing anything untoward in his physical state, his awareness. And he killed a 98-year-old woman crossing a downtown street. Because his neurological state was such that his visual field was deleteriously affected. A few months after the accident Mr. Mainwaring was operated on, to remove a portion of the tumour.
The tumour had been, after all, giving him headaches and causing him to be confused, as untreated, it had grown. A neuro-ophthalmologist who had been asked to appear before the court testified that after he had tested the man's visual fields, he'd discovered significant loss of vision on Mr. Mainwaring's left visual field. A condition that would have pertained to the time of the accident.
Does Mr. Mainwaring feel deep-seated regret for having taken the life of a pedestrian? Well, his specialist had informed him he shouldn't be driving, had also notified the ministry of transportation, with the result that Mr. Mainwaring's license had been suspended. There had been two previous driving mishaps before that unfortunate fatality.
During his two-and-a-half hour testimony Mr. Mainwaring, appearing confused at times, informed the court that he has obeyed the no-driving order. However, he said, he aspires to drive again. "I believe I am a careful driver, more careful than most."
He is obviously still brain-impaired.
And like all activities one becomes accustomed to performing, driving is something that is human-motor-mechanically done. It's such a familiar thing, who even thinks about what they're doing? They just proceed, automatically. Having adapted oneself over the years to habits inimical to safety. Speeding recklessly, failing to observe road courtesy, let alone traffic signals, necessary to maintain a clockwork precision of motorized choreography.
Pedestrians have learned to have a care. Isn't everyone, at some times, a pedestrian? Shouldn't motorists recall that simple fact? That, if they're driving dangerously, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they are handling a potentially dangerous instrument, one that might maim or kill human beings? Theoretically we all do know that, but in a practical way it's a bloody nuisance, best ignored lest it interfere with our freedoms and entitlements.
Here's a 53-year-old Ottawa man, informed through a CT scan that he had a brain tumour. His family doctor and his family urged him to visit a specialist for further diagnosis. "I certainly didn't feel inclined to see a brain surgeon. I thought there was nothing wrong with my brain", Robert Mainwaring informed the court at a hearing of one count of careless driving.
He lived with his tumour for five years, not knowing what how it might be affecting him. Not, it would appear, noticing anything untoward in his physical state, his awareness. And he killed a 98-year-old woman crossing a downtown street. Because his neurological state was such that his visual field was deleteriously affected. A few months after the accident Mr. Mainwaring was operated on, to remove a portion of the tumour.
The tumour had been, after all, giving him headaches and causing him to be confused, as untreated, it had grown. A neuro-ophthalmologist who had been asked to appear before the court testified that after he had tested the man's visual fields, he'd discovered significant loss of vision on Mr. Mainwaring's left visual field. A condition that would have pertained to the time of the accident.
Does Mr. Mainwaring feel deep-seated regret for having taken the life of a pedestrian? Well, his specialist had informed him he shouldn't be driving, had also notified the ministry of transportation, with the result that Mr. Mainwaring's license had been suspended. There had been two previous driving mishaps before that unfortunate fatality.
During his two-and-a-half hour testimony Mr. Mainwaring, appearing confused at times, informed the court that he has obeyed the no-driving order. However, he said, he aspires to drive again. "I believe I am a careful driver, more careful than most."
He is obviously still brain-impaired.
Labels: Ottawa, Particularities, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home