10 ms·
But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle. If a child runs in front of my car then it is most defi
by eertami 10y ago
But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle.
If a child runs in front of my car then it is most definitely at fault and I'd honestly much rather it be dead than me, if those are the options.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoYou are not alone in that, but perhaps in a minority. A child cannot truly be 'at fault'.
- pc86 10y agoLegally speaking children are found to be at fault all the time, and under certain circumstances even treated as adults. So no, they're not incapable of being at fault.
- jessaustin 10y agoHypothetical question: would you send the bill for bumper dent-repair to the parents of the child who died making that dent?
- pc86 10y agoWould I? Of course not. Would my insurance company? Probably.
- jessaustin 10y agoLet me guess, you haven't done much work in public relations? Much worse for a company than doing some evil reprehensible shit, is doing such shit in a fashion that's an easy, emotional "narrative hook" for the media. A grieving mother clutching a tear-stained auto repair bill itemized with "child's-head-sized dent, one" is the easiest hook imaginable.
- FireBeyond 10y agoMaybe so. But Google for "parents of dead child sent bill for airlift" - if you want to be pedantic, you can even argue that in some of those cases, there may not have been any choice, only an implied consent by law that says that "a reasonable person would have wanted to be flown to hospital". You'll find examples. And for every waived bill you'll also hear "well, regardless of the tragic outcome, a service was rendered, and we have the right to be paid for our work". Please note that I am carefully avoiding passing any judgment on the morality of any of the above.
- jessaustin 10y agoUnless I really misunderstand, the invoices to which you refer are for services intended to preserve the life of a child, not services intended to relieve a third party of certain trifling inconveniences associated with a child's death?
- jrockway 10y agoYou're using the word "it" to describe human children now?
- jessaustin 10y agoYeah this thread has really squicked me out. Of course dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors of all sorts. I'd like to hope, however, that outside the current commuter-hell driving context, few people would even admit to themselves, let alone broadcast to the world, their considered preference for killing children. That is, when they no longer drive, perhaps people won't be quite so insane about auto travel. The twisted ethos displayed in this thread will be considered an example of Arendt's "banality of evil".
- NhanH 10y agoI don't even drive at all, and yet this thread irks me from the other direction. Dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors, and bringing children into a discussion is an age old tactic for justifying irrational decisions ("Think of the children"). You claimed that any car may be driven slowly enough to avoid killing people on the road with only mere convenient to others. That's patently false: firetruck. And then there are several other posters claiming that it's the driver fault if any accident happens at all, due to the mere fact that the driver chooses to drive a car. If we remove every single vehicle in the US out of the street tomorrow, a whole lot of people would die, directly or indirectly. I'd like to see anyone stating outright that "usage of cars in modern society have no benefit insofar as saving human lives is concerned". In the end, I think both sides are fighting a straw-man, or rather, imagine different scenario in the discussion. I read the original poster as imagine a case where swerving means on a freeway potentially being deadly for at least 2 vehicles, along with a multi-vehicle pile up. You're imaging suburban CA where swerving means some inconvenience with the insurance company. I have little doubt that everyone would swerve to avoid the collision in the latter. Also since we're on HN and semantic nit-picking is a ritual around here, "avoid killing children in the road above all other priorities, including the lives of passengers" is NOT a good idea. As far as the car knows, I might have 3 kids in the backseats.
- random_upvoter 10y agoYou are still the one who elected to hurl 1500 kilograms of metal down the road.
- vacri 10y agoRead the last sentence of the parent comment again.