4 ms·

The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not tru

by gburt 11y ago

The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true.

nitrogen 11y ago
It's pretty clear that the incentives are all wrong. People doing these things are making the judgment that it's less expensive and less risky to kill than to injure. This is terrible, and a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution is making sure the incentives are right via insurance and liability limits.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true. It's an accident because it's not on purpose. If you intentionally kill your ex with your car then people don't call it an accident. Moreover, there are less than 5000 pedestrian fatalities per year in the US, and the reason there are that many is that US drivers drive three trillion miles a year. That's less than one pedestrian fatality for every 600 million miles. At 12,000 miles a year it would take more than 50,000 years before the average driver would kill one pedestrian. And that isn't doing any accounting for the cases where the pedestrian was at fault. Most drivers never kill anyone. And that remains true even though almost all drivers are idiots at least some of the time. Because to kill someone you have to be an idiot and be in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time. But you can't control random chance, which is why we have insurance.
- Steltek 11y ago
  Many (most?) accidents are predicated on a purposeful choice to drive dangerously: speeding and unable to slow down sufficiently, fiddling with your phone, driving drunk or tired. You may not mean to harm someone but American society has failed to recognize acts that directly contribute to injury and death.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I really don't think that's the case. Those are the ones that get paraded around, but there are plenty of collisions that are results of simple mistakes or invisible road hazards.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > Many (most?) accidents are predicated on a purposeful choice to drive dangerously "Dangerous" is one of those words that have been so abused it has lost all meaning. Infiltrating a violent criminal organization is dangerous. Explosive ordinance disposal is dangerous. Driving 11MPH over the speed limit is completely mundane. It is obviously possible to drive very dangerously, but people also have a pretty good sense about these things and therefore don't. The number of people who are stupid enough to drive 120MPH in a residential neighborhood is small. It is also true that e.g. driving faster can be, in a relativistic sense, "more dangerous" than driving slower. But that is true regardless of the point of reference. Driving 10MPH can be "more dangerous" than driving 5MPH. Driving 5MPH can be "more dangerous" than not driving at all. But that doesn't make driving 10MPH (or 40MPH) "dangerous" in an absolute sense. It just puts it in the same category of weighing costs against risks that government engineers do when deciding whether to build a sidewalk or catwalk or traffic light, or pedestrians do when deciding whether to cross at a blind intersection or walk to a different one. Each of which is a "direct cause" when a driver traveling at 40MPH hits a pedestrian crossing at a blind intersection with no traffic light.
dllthomas 11y ago
It is true that one can substantially control whether they injure someone. It is not true that one can perfectly control whether they injure someone (short of abstaining entirely from driving). Moreover, the word "accident" does not in any way imply that the result could not have been avoided if different decisions were made or more care were taken - that is almost universally the case for "accidental" things.

by gburt 11y ago

The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true.

nitrogen 11y ago

It's pretty clear that the incentives are all wrong. People doing these things are making the judgment that it's less expensive and less risky to kill than to injure. This is terrible, and a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution is making sure the incentives are right via insurance and liability limits.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true. It's an accident because it's not on purpose. If you intentionally kill your ex with your car then people don't call it an accident. Moreover, there are less than 5000 pedestrian fatalities per year in the US, and the reason there are that many is that US drivers drive three trillion miles a year. That's less than one pedestrian fatality for every 600 million miles. At 12,000 miles a year it would take more than 50,000 years before the average driver would kill one pedestrian. And that isn't doing any accounting for the cases where the pedestrian was at fault. Most drivers never kill anyone. And that remains true even though almost all drivers are idiots at least some of the time. Because to kill someone you have to be an idiot and be in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time. But you can't control random chance, which is why we have insurance.

Steltek 11y ago
Many (most?) accidents are predicated on a purposeful choice to drive dangerously: speeding and unable to slow down sufficiently, fiddling with your phone, driving drunk or tired. You may not mean to harm someone but American society has failed to recognize acts that directly contribute to injury and death.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I really don't think that's the case. Those are the ones that get paraded around, but there are plenty of collisions that are results of simple mistakes or invisible road hazards.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Many (most?) accidents are predicated on a purposeful choice to drive dangerously "Dangerous" is one of those words that have been so abused it has lost all meaning. Infiltrating a violent criminal organization is dangerous. Explosive ordinance disposal is dangerous. Driving 11MPH over the speed limit is completely mundane. It is obviously possible to drive very dangerously, but people also have a pretty good sense about these things and therefore don't. The number of people who are stupid enough to drive 120MPH in a residential neighborhood is small. It is also true that e.g. driving faster can be, in a relativistic sense, "more dangerous" than driving slower. But that is true regardless of the point of reference. Driving 10MPH can be "more dangerous" than driving 5MPH. Driving 5MPH can be "more dangerous" than not driving at all. But that doesn't make driving 10MPH (or 40MPH) "dangerous" in an absolute sense. It just puts it in the same category of weighing costs against risks that government engineers do when deciding whether to build a sidewalk or catwalk or traffic light, or pedestrians do when deciding whether to cross at a blind intersection or walk to a different one. Each of which is a "direct cause" when a driver traveling at 40MPH hits a pedestrian crossing at a blind intersection with no traffic light.

dllthomas 11y ago

It is true that one can substantially control whether they injure someone. It is not true that one can perfectly control whether they injure someone (short of abstaining entirely from driving). Moreover, the word "accident" does not in any way imply that the result could not have been avoided if different decisions were made or more care were taken - that is almost universally the case for "accidental" things.