From buddy Mon Nov  7 19:41:55 1994
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 14:04:51
Subject: automoblise vs. pedestrians


         AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF AUTOMOBILES VS. PEDESTRIANS
                                                      by
                                             P.J. O'Rourke

   We often hear automobiles criticized. Safety experts say they are
dangerous.  Ecologists tell us they pollute the air. Economists claim
cars are responsible for U.S. trade deficits and high energy costs.
Social Scientists blame them for the deterioration of our inner cities.
And aesthetes damn them for roadside blight. But even if all these
accusations are true, the automobile is still an improvement on its
principal alternative, the pedestrian.
   Pedestrians are easily damaged. Try this test: Hit a pedestrian with
a car. Now have the pedestrian hit the car back. Then roll a pedestrian
and a car through four inches of slush and road salt at sixty miles an
hour. Take a coin-operated gun and hose off their undersides. Which is
in better shape? Also, most automobiles have 5 MPH bumpers. But a
pedestrian cannot be run into a wall at even 3 MPH (approximately
walking speed) without getting a bloody nose. And pedestrians are
notoriously expensive to repair.
   Automobiles are cleaner than pedestrians. Even diesel exhaust smells
better than a dirty human. Pedestrians wiggle and squeal when you try
to scrub them, and they are hard to wax. A dented and rusty automobile
is still more attractive than the average pedestrian. Strip a car of
its paint. Strip a person of his clothes. Which looks worse in broad
daylight?
   Cars last a hundred thousand miles or so. Just try to take anybody
that far on foot.
   Pedestrians are slow, require complex maintenance procedures and
have bewildering fuel requirements.
   There are no quality-control or safety standards for pedestrians.
And if the anti-abortion lobby gets its way, we won't even be able to
recall them.
   Most of the time you can predict what an automobile will do. And if
you loose control of an automobile you can jump out of it. But
pedestrians are completely unpredictable. And when you're a pedestrian
it's difficult to jump out of yourself.
   Not only are automobiles better than people in most respects but
people behave better when they are in automobiles than they do when
they are on foot. A great big crowd of people in automobiles is a
traffic jam. It's unpleasant, yes--horns honk, tempers flare, etc. But
a great big crowd of people OUT of automobiles is a mob. And that's
worse. No traffic jam ever stormed the Winter Palace, cheered a
lynching or voted Adolf Hitler into power.
   Most good things can be experienced in a car--eating, sleeping, sex,
listening to Handel's WATER MUSIC. But the experience of evil is
severely limited. Think how much less evil Central America would have
experienced if, for example, all the Sandinistas had been in cars. They
would have been stuck in the jungle, axle-deep in mud, and would never
have been able to enslave peasants, kill contras or get any Russian
weapons into El Salvador.
   It's hard for people to mug you from inside an automobile, and
virtually impossible for them to rob your apartment without getting out
of the car.
   People on foot are more likely not only to steal, but to litter. The
normal business suit has no convenient place, such as a backseat floor,
to toss candy wrappers, old newspapers and empty beer cans.
   When people are in a car driving down the road it's hard to hear
them lie, complain, argue and spread malicious gossip--especially if
you're in your own car headed the other way.
   Consider how much better the United Nations Assembly would be if all
the delegates were speeding around the Assembly floor in old junkers
having a figure-eight race and smashing into each other. It would be
more interesting for everybody, and the intellectual quality of debate
would be greatly improved. The same goes double for Congress.
   True, some trouble, such as drive-by shootings and fatal crashes,
can be caused in an automobile. But often it's just a pedestrian who
gets killed. And though drunk drivers are a menace, drunk parents are a
worse one. They do more damage to society stumbling around the house
than anybody ever did in a head-on collision.
   All children should be given a car as soon as they are old enough to
wash it and vacuum the seats. Owning and caring for an automobile
builds good citizenship. Children can learn a great deal by watching
their automobile and following its example. Automobiles are democratic.
A Plymouth Velvedere is more than a match for a Lamborghini is a six-
car pile-up. Automobiles are egalitarian, as anybody who's ever drag
raced a Bently in an old Mustang knows.
   Automobiles are strangers to sexism. You can't possible say that a
car's place is in the kitchen. And there's never been any such thing as
distaff automobiles that couldn't vote or Chinese wire-wheel binding.
   Automobiles have no unfortunate allegorical connotations. A man on
horseback is a symbol of authoritarianism. But a man on a car roof is
just silly.
   There are no religious controversies among automobiles. Automobiles
belong to no race and have no political opinions (though a Trabant, if
it could, would probably wish it had been designed by somebody other
than a drunk communist).
   Automobiles are free of egotism, passion, prejudice and stupid ideas
about where to have dinner. They are literally, selfless. A world
designed for automobiles instead of people would have wider streets,
larger dining rooms, fewer stairs to climb and no smelly, dangerous
subway stations.
   Indeed, we would lead better lives and be a wiser nation if we
placed the automobile, instead of our own ambitions and greed, at the
center of our society. This should be taken into consideration the next
time we amend our Constitution:

ARTICLE I: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a
boring old 55 MPH speed limit; or prohibiting the free exercise of
performance cars on empty winding roads; or abridging the freedom to
cruise around aimlessly; or the right of the people to remove those
annoying voice boxes that tell you to buckle your seat belt.

ARTICLE II: Contented Yahoos being necessary for the amusement of a
free state, the right of Texans (and people who act like Texans) to
drive around with guns in the gunracks of their pick-up trucks and
shoot varmits and critters out the window shall not be infringed.

ARTICLE III: No driver's education student or School Safety Patrol
member shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house if he won't
shovel the driveway.

ARTICLE IV: The right of the people to be secure in their cars, trucks,
vans and RVs against unreasonable nosiness shall not be violated, and
no policemen with flashlights or irate parents shall come poking around
country lanes or scenic overlooks while couples are parked and necking.

ARTICLE V: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual wisecracks by local traffic cops made
just because somebody forgot to get their car inspected or was going 38
in a 35 MPH zone.

   And so on. It would give us a federal charter that really has
something to do with our day-to-day lives. And it would keep our
legislators and Supreme Court busy with important things instead of
school prayer and covert CIA antics. Plus--and this is very important--
parking would be an unalienable right.

>From GIVE WAR A CHANCE Copyright (c) 1992 by P.J. O'Rourke