Addressing the Need for Speed:

An Argument in Favour of Enjoying Your Car

by C. J. Calder

The CBC evening news recently ran a spot on street racing vs ‘taking it to the track’. It centred on a mall display featuring the PACER (Police And Community Educating Racers) program, several police officers, a track racer, a seriously smacked up ex-street racing vehicle and the rather lovely looking PACER-sponsored race car. For those who may not be aware, the PACER program aggressively addresses the street racing problem, encouraging the aspiring racer to ‘take it to the track’. The program recognizes that people are likely to want to drive their cars fast – a look at the typical new car of late, boasting 200-plus horsepower, sometimes a lot more, would explain why. The program then suggests appropriate venues at which people can indulge this need for speed. It also presents irrefutable evidence of the dangers of street racing – an uncontrolled environment, inadequate skills, badly prepared cars, unpredictable road hazards, lack of safety and medical presence etc. However, the CBC showed from the start the ‘angle’ it had chosen.

The officer was asked by the reporter on-camera whether the PACER program’s support and promoting speed events wasn’t actually irresponsible if there is such an element of danger attached to the combination of cars and speed, even at the track. The part of the answer that made the broadcast was that the program tries to develop the positive side of an otherwise negative phenomenon.

Hmmm. Not mentioned, perhaps lying on the cutting room floor, were other reasons this need for speed should be indulged, safely. For instance, with these ever more powerful cars, drivers should indeed be encouraged to see what it feels like at the limit. These cars are too easy to get into trouble with. The downside of the wonderfully orchestrated suspension and steering is that you can get in way over your head without realizing it, on a ramp, encountering standing water or black ice, or even a jetsam from another vehicle. But I digress.

A Dr Banfield from Sunnybrook Hospital was then interviewed and offered her opinion on the PACER program encouraging car aficionados to take it to the track. She said she didn’t want people speeding on regular roads, but she didn’t want them ‘speeding’ at a racetrack either. (I wonder what constitutes ‘speeding’ at a race track.) She said that studies indicate that indulging the need for speed even at the track encourages people to speed on the streets and therefore have serious accidents.

First of all, I challenge the statistics as well as the conclusions she draws. I also challenge the omission of other considerations. What about getting it out of your system – safely? What about learning car control – safely? What about encouraging people to learn how to drive these ridiculously high powered cars, available to everyone with dollars in hand, and doing it safely?

The idea behind ‘taking it to the track’ and the PACER program is not just about ‘speeding’ – it’s about car familiarity, car control and driver control as well. It’s about how you control the ‘red mist’, every bit as much as how you control a skid. Learning how to be a better driver is the basis of learning how to be a safer driver.

Knowing the car’s limit, and what it is likely to do on reaching that limit, is an important part of knowing your car. A car can encounter that limit at high speeds in a straight line, or at much lower speeds when things get complicated, and sometimes not when and where you’d expect it.

So that’s the dour and dry explanation of why I advocate thorough familiarity with your car. The other reason is that driving a car can be a joy. You don’t have to be ‘speeding’ necessarily to experience this. But putting it in context, the posted speed limit is not the fastest at which a road can safely be driven. It is determined to be the speed at which the worst driver just out of Lucky This or That Driving School can negotiate the road with a minimum of care and attention.

I think much of the general public associates motorsports with irresponsibility and recklessness, missing the point that there are many reasons people enjoy their vehicles. For those that I am proud to call friends and associates, it’s a case of learning how to handle your car under any situation – including unpredictable incident avoidance. It was for this reason that Solo 2 events once went by the name of Driving Skill Tests. Success at motorsports events involves driver control every bit as much as car control. And yes, what you learn at the track can indeed save your life. I know. All those times I’ve taken my car to the limit (and sometimes beyond) have paid off in at least four dramatic accident avoidances in ten years. Even the flamboyant exploits of the Drift Nation phenomenon, when done responsibly, demand a lot of driver skill and car control.

Despite what many people think, a car is not just a means of getting from Point A to Point B. It is a major factor in our culture and a focus of a subculture. It is a means of expression. It is a weapon. It is a passion. And it just gets faster and more powerful with every model year. For this reason, cars must be handled with wisdom, skill and control. Learning to parallel park is not sufficient. All drivers must learn how to correct a skid, experience under and oversteer and discover threshold braking BEFORE facing a real life emergency. How better than to learn this at the track where a novice can learn from the experienced in a safe, controlled and sanctioned environment?

I believe the CBC did motorsports, the motoring public and itself a disservice in its coverage. It did nothing to bridge the gulf between enthusiasts (both mainstream and outlaw) and tongue-cluckers, and did even less to strengthen the position of the PACER program in getting street racers to ‘take it to the track’. It served only to polarize the very group the PACER program is trying to reach, and in doing so made all car racers look like irresponsible yahoos. And I for one take offense.