Go with the Flow on the Road?

JOHN YDSTIE, host:

This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm John Ydstie.

If you're listening to us in the car today, maybe on your way back from the beach, today's question for New York Times magazine ethicist Randy Cohen is sure to grab your ear. It comes from Bill Wesner(ph) in northern Virginia, and he joins us on the line now.

Hello, Bill.

Mr. BILL WESNER (Listener): Hello.

YDSTIE: And Randy is with us from our studios in New York.

Hello, Randy.

Mr. RANDY COHEN (Ethicist, The New York Times): Hi, John.

YDSTIE: Bill, tell Randy what's vexing you. What's the problem?

Mr. WESNER: Well, as you know, the traffic in Washington, DC, is really bad, and I've taken to pretty much always driving the speed limit, and it's starting to drive my wife and my friends crazy. I stick to it because I feel pretty strongly that it saves gas, it's probably a safer thing to do. But a couple of weeks ago a very astute friend of mine said to me, `Bill, do you think that you might actually be putting yourself and other drivers in a more dangerous situation because everyone around Washington drives over the speed limit except you?' And I've been thinking about that ever since, and I realized that, you know, maybe he's right. Maybe that by not keeping up with traffic, I'm doing something ethically wrong by creating an inherently dangerous situation.

YDSTIE: Well, Bill, actually, given the traffic in northern Virginia, I'm surprised anyone gets up to the speed limit. It's so crowded.

(Soundbite of laughter)

YDSTIE: But occasionally I guess people do, and they try to make the most of the open spaces they get, and they go way too fast.

Mr. WESNER: Yeah.

YDSTIE: Well, what do you think, Randy? Bill wants to drive the speed limit. That's the posted speed limit. Seems like he has the law on his side at least. Is he taking the ethical approach even if he might become a hazard?

Mr. COHEN: Well, he's crystalized the ethical question succinctfully and brilliantly; that ethics is very much about assessing the effects of our actions on other people. So the ethical question becomes: What does less harm, driving the speed limit or keeping up with traffic?

Now I consulted a fellow named Leonard Evans, who's a kind of genius of traffic safety. He wrote a book by that name, "Traffic Safety." And Mr. Evans pointed out that if you drive slowly at the speed limit, you really increase the likelihood of accidents. He says--and I'm quoting here--that "by increasing the number of overtakings, you increase the number of crashes." The more cars pass other cars, the more the speeds are different, you increase the likelihood of accidents. But if you drive fast, you'll increase--and there is an accident, you'll increase the severity of the accident; that a crash at a lower speed will have a sharply lower injury risk.

So whichever you do, if you drive fast, if you drive slow, you're going to harm other people. Really, if you get anywhere near a car, it's what kind of harm you prefer to do here. Would you rather have more accidents, or would you rather have worse accidents?

There are other factors. You mentioned fuel consumption. There's also the notion of -by driving the speed limit, you set an example of law-abiding conduct that conceivably could influence other people. That's good. It shows respect for the law. On the other hand, you're also likely to provoke a certain amount of road rage.

So when you're trying to balance this many factors in working out the consequences of your action, I think it's a push, it's a wipe here; that it is impossible to form a clear and undebatable conclusion about which is the more benign action. And so my conclusion is you may keep up with traffic even when it's going a bit over the limit, but you're not obliged to.

YDSTIE: What do you think of that, Bill?

Mr. WESNER: That sounds like a really good answer to me, very well thought out. Keeping up with traffic in Washington means often driving a lot over the speed limit, not just a smidge.

YDSTIE: I would make the case that from the evidence that you cited, the preponderance is on the side of going the speed limit. After all, that's the law. In terms of accidents, there'll be maybe more but less severe accidents. He will be setting a good example for the rest of the community. So maybe he ought to drive the speed limit.

Mr. COHEN: I think that's a reasonable conclusion, but I also think the opposite conclusion is just as reasonable. He will avoid creating more accidents. He's not setting any example. If he were setting any example, people would be slowing up. No one is looking to Bill, nice a guy as he may be, but he is not setting an example. He's just getting in everybody's way.

YDSTIE: So, Bill, are you going to step on the gas?

Mr. WESNER: Probably not, but I take the Metro most days anyway.

Mr. COHEN: Well, there. Now that is, of course, the really right answer. The truly virtuous driver is the driver who does not drive. It's kind of Zen.

YDSTIE: If you've got a question for Randy Cohen, visit our Web site at npr.org, and click on the link that says `Contact Us.' Please be sure to write `ethics' in the subject line, and give us a phone number where we can reach you. Randy Cohen writes the Ethicist column for The New York Times Magazine and joins us regularly on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

Thanks, Randy.

Mr. COHEN: Thank you very much, John.

YDSTIE: And thanks to you, too, Bill.

Mr. WESNER: Thank you, John.

Copyright © 2005 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.