No Accident

Kelly Daniels’s opposition to automobiles [“No Accident,” April 2020] struck a chord. As a child, I kept missing the school bus, and I’d take my time meandering back to my babysitter’s house. As a teen I’d walk to school because I loved the quiet journey before my day.

When I attended the University of Zimbabwe, I walked the five miles to the city of Harare instead of risking a ride in the rickety hatchback taxis, which were always crammed with passengers. Hundreds of others did the same, talking to friends as they walked. I saw cars as a dividing force: by going fast, we miss out on communing with each other and with nature.

A bike is a compromise, but still far superior to a car. In my city of Anchorage, Alaska, bike trails connect most parts of town. When I ride, I say hello to people, contend with our vast array of wildlife, get a workout in the fresh air, and start my day with joy. And I don’t risk my life by driving.

Alisa Elliott Rector Anchorage, Alaska

As I read Kelly Daniels’s “No Accident,” I could hear the howls of protest at his claim that the true cause of carnage on the road is the car, not the alcohol. It takes bravery to fly in the face of policy that tries to control road death through draconian legislation regarding blood-alcohol content. People who have lost loved ones in accidents where alcohol was a factor often push for such legislation, but Daniels is correct. In the bulk of auto accidents, alcohol is not a factor.

Buz Trevor Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada

What was the point of Kelly Daniels’s essay “No Accident”? Yes, there will always be motor-vehicle accidents, and these sometimes cause deaths. People die in bicycle accidents, too, however, and not just when the riders are struck by cars. Many modern conveniences can cause death; should we eliminate them all? And motorized vehicles such as ambulances and firetrucks sure come in handy.

I agree we need more bike lanes, and that the environmental impact of this car-crazy nation should be considered more often. But none of this was part of Daniels’s cavalier attitude about drinking and driving.

Anne Rankin Brunswick, Maine

While it is true that roughly 29 percent of traffic fatalities in the U.S. involve impairment, alcohol played a role in 100 percent of Kelly Daniels’s accidents. After surviving three and completing a court-ordered Youthful Drunk Driver Visitation Program, Daniels concluded that “drinking wasn’t the real problem. Cars were.”

My message to my children is: Don’t drink and drive. If you are impaired, call me anytime and I will come and get you. Do not get in a car driven by someone who is impaired. Attempt to prevent your friends from driving drunk.

It will take time to remove our dependence on cars. In the meantime we can save lives by not using those cars while impaired.

David Larson Long Beach, California

Kelly Daniels responds:

To David Larson: I commend the parenting described in your letter, and I intend to do the same when the time comes for my son to take the wheel. Moreover, I am working to create a community in which we are not so frequently tempted to mix inebriation and driving. Even I, a former drunk driver and perennial bad-decision maker, believe we can do better.

To Anne Rankin: I frequently ask myself this question — What is the point? — about my writing and my life in general. I admit I am a meandering sort of essayist. For a more focused article on our reliance on cars, I recommend “What Have We Sacrificed for Transportation Independence?” by Arian Horbovetz, which is readily available online.