Rusty Saber: Sofa parking, asphalt antics under review

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.

Research projects will always be under way to answer questions most of us wouldn't have thought to ask.

Two new research projects come to mind. One study presents data on how couch potatoes get that way. Couch potato isn't a scientific term: "inactive person" is perhaps more politically correct. Wait, if it isn't politically correct, I think I'll stick with "couch potato."

The study hypothesizes that inactivity may not be the fault of individuals; it could be genetic. My initial reaction: here's another "It isn't my fault" exoneration. In a way, it is. However, the study attempts to seek answers about why some people find exercise easy, and others find it too difficult. It suggests that obesity may also be in the genes, and may explain why some people lose weight from exercise, while others don't.

Several groups conducted the study. Amazing as it sounds, 60 percent of Americans are not regularly active, and until now, they were unaware that they might be able to blame mom and dad.

Politicians take note, a majority of Americans are couch potatoes. What if they formed a party? They might put one of their own in the White House, and take control of Congress. Think about the possibilities. Would they be too lazy to get around to raising taxes? A thought to ponder.

Not to make light of research findings that could lead to a more healthy lifestyle for a lot of people, but I can't help but wonder about other foibles that could be blamed on genetics.

Immediately, I was stuck by the thought of inherited characteristics at the heart of bad driving habits. Could road rage be inborn? Imagine a scenario with a driver in court pleading innocent on the grounds that running through red lights was in his genes. "I was born to run red lights, judge. It wasn't my fault."

While nothing seems to support the notion that hazardous driving is genetic, the other new research project of interest to me does focus on behaviors that distract drivers.

This study consisted of small video cameras installed in the cars of 70 volunteers in the Philadelphia area and North Carolina. In order for the inquiry to have real meaning, we must assume that the drivers volunteered to have the cameras installed in their cars and then conveniently forgot about them. If not, the taped antics may not be what would have occurred if the cameras weren't there. Let's assume it's a valid study; otherwise, this column ends right here.

The bottom line of the study is that drivers do things considered to be distracting 16 percent of the time. I would have assumed that talking on cell phones would be the chief distraction. I have often yearned to bellow at a driver: "Hang up that phone, turn off or on your turn signals, and get to wherever it is you're going!" Actually, cell phones preoccupied only 30 percent of drivers; 46 percent groomed themselves; 71 percent ate or drank something; and 92 percent fiddled with radios or CD players. Forty percent read or wrote something, which is not as scary as it sounds because most incidents occurred while sitting at traffic lights and signs.

Of course, no Rusty Saber reader, including myself, has ever participated in such distractions; however, I have observed drivers who do. I wonder if the study accounts for multiple distractions per driver? For instance, talking on a phone, eating a hamburger, sipping a soft drink while taking a close-up of nose hairs in the mirror?

Like the couch potato study, this one has serious consequences. Modern driving is so fast and furious, drivers should have no distractions.

It isn't likely that research will ever indicate that distracting oneself while driving is congenital. But who would have thought that a study would come along to hypothesize that couch potatoes are born, not made?