There’s this condition out there called ‘Car Brain’. It’s a semi-consciousness brought on by seeing life only through the windshield of an automobile. Symptoms of ‘Car Brain’ may include limited vision, hypertension and regular bouts of irrationality.

A recent example of ‘Car Brain’ occurred in the pages of the Globe and Mail last weekend in a post written by journeyman columnist, Scott Stinson. “Photo radar is becoming increasingly common,” the headline began, rather sedately. “That doesn’t make it any less infuriating,” came the entirely unsurprising turn.

According to Mr. Stinson, there he was (or someone in his household was), minding his/their own business, driving a mere 54 km/h in a 40 km/h zone, “which,” to his mind, “isn’t even particularly excessive.” Another symptom of ‘Car Brain’. An inability to perform basic math. Going 14 km/hr over the posted 40 km/hr speed limit is, by my quick calculation, sitting here at my desk, more than a third faster than a driver should be going, 35% faster in fact. Is the definition of ‘excessive’ different when you’re behind the wheel of a vehicle than it is when you’re in front of a computer?

Evidently.

Speeding, excessively so or not, is, by Scott Stinson’s reasoning, relative and subjective.

“It is true that drivers can avoid such tickets by sticking to the posted speed limits,” he writes, and you’ll be sensing a ‘but’ coming here, “but it is also true that drivers are hardly ever expected to strictly observe those limits.”

There it is.

Put any other infraction in that sentence, keep it to non-violent offenses, and see if it makes any lick of sense.

“It is true that shoplifters can avoid being apprehended by not shoplifting, but it is also true that shoplifters are hardly ever expected to strictly obey the law.”

“It is true that mail-order fraudsters can avoid being arrested by not committing mail-order fraud, but it is also true that mail-order fraudsters are hardly ever expected to strictly obey the law.”

Wait, wait, wait, the car brain-addled defender will counter. Shoplifting and fraud aren’t victimless crimes. Speeding is.

Until it isn’t, of course.

Never mind that speeding is a leading cause of road crashes, nearly 22% in 2022 according to Transport Canada.

Studies have shown a very direct relationship between increased vehicle speeds and increased chances of injury and fatalities, both within and outside the vehicle, when involved in traffic collisions. For every 16 km/hr increase in speed, the chances of dying in a crash doubles. It’s even worse for road users outside of the vehicle. By choosing to drive at 54 km/hr instead of the posted limit of 40 km/hr, the driver of Mr. Stinson’s automobile upped the chances of killing a pedestrian somewhere in the neighbourhood of five-fold.

This is the risk of causing injury and death every driver assumes when they decide to speed, and it is a decision, to speed. Premeditated and deliberately undertaken. But in this particular case, no harm, no foul, right?

So why should we have to pay a fine for disobeying the law where nobody got hurt? Stinson seems to be asking. Somehow to the car-brained, it just doesn’t seem fair, this penalizing of basic, everyday. run-of-the-mill disregard for the rules of the road. At least with manned radar traps, a driver can plead their case with the cop behind the gun. Come on, officer. It was just a little over the speed limit. I was in a rush to pick my kid up from daycare, officer. I thought the speed limit was 54 km/hr, officer! Really! We need to post more signs along this route. According to Stinson, “… from the moment they learn to drive, motorists understand that speeding is the furthest thing from a zero-tolerance offence. There’s some leeway there.” Photo radar, to the car-brained like Stinson, eliminates that leeway and de-personalizes the cop-speeder relationship. “It’s like the generally accepted contract between drivers and police—just drive at a reasonable speed and you’ll be fine—has been broken.”

Spoken like a true white guy.

Because as we know, everyone who gets pulled over by the police is treated with equal discernment and consideration. Leave it up to the officer’s discretion about who to ding, who to lecture, who to give a pass to for “travelling a little over the limit.” Equal protection (and discretion) in the eyes of the law, amirite?

Given the increasing bite police budgets are taking from municipal and provincial treasuries, a fiscal argument could be made that it’s a waste of resources to have actual police boots on the ground, doing a job that automation can do in many cases. Since Mr. Stinson doesn’t think a little speeding here and there is an actual crime, surely he wouldn’t begrudge the idea of police officers being better utilized, policing genuine criminal activity. For every cop having to issue speeding tickets in person while listening to sob stories and justifications from unrepentant drivers, that’s one less walking the beat or responding to emergency calls like speed cameras being cut down and thrown into a nearby pond.

Of course, in extreme cases of car brain rot, you don’t see anything criminal in the pursuit of freeing up drivers to drive just however they please. “Photo-radar vigilantism,” Stinson calls it, referring to the ongoing damage being done to radar cameras including one on Parkside Drive in Toronto that’s been destroyed multiple times including being “cut down and thrown in a nearby pond,” Stinson writes, adding, “a metaphorical photo-radar drowning that was a tremendous commitment to the bit.” ‘The bit’ is also known a vandalism of public property, and what Stinson fails to mention is that particular radar camera was put in place, at least in part, in reaction to the killing of two people back in their car in 2021 by a driver going between 101 and 117 km/hr. In a 50 km/hr zone.

Of course there’s a difference between that kind of excessive, reckless, criminal speeding and what Stinson refers to as “driving at a normal rate of speed”, a measly 14 kilometres over the limit. Just like there’s a difference between shoplifting a couple Snickers bars and committing fraud over, say, $5000. We have different degrees of penalties for those different levels of crime. But there is a penalty for both. We don’t teach our kids that a ‘little’ stealing’s OK. So why do we insist on claiming a ‘little’ speeding is the normal way to drive?