7 ms·

Sorry - nerd in me but: He could have either gone straight or swerved right. He couldn't have swerved left?

by 13of40 10y ago

rincebrain 10y ago
It was a long truck - a landscaping trailer hitched to its back. I would guess that sharp enough movements would not have done something constructive, so if the vehicle was already coming right around a curve, or going fast enough, they could have let off a little to go "straight" or continued to go "right", but going left would have done nothing reasonable. In the article, though, the driver phrases it as them being too close, and turning just meaning hitting one or the other, so perhaps they came out into the street and he was just going too fast.
- mackal 10y ago
  It also said they were just fishing, so it's possible there wasn't really room to go the other direction without killing himself.
kodfodrasz 10y ago
There was an investigation and court case about the accident, as the article mentions. If the driver would have been guilty, probably he would have been punished. I think some pretty unfortunate situation arose, maybe the children were also not careful enough, it doesn't really matter anymore. The driver had to make a decision in a split second. Probably he already instinctively did some action by the time he got to think about the situation, and the "decision" is a rationalization of a situation he was just as well victim of, where he also didn't have any control.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  If the driver would have been guilty, probably he would have been punished. In USA, this assumption is usually wrong. Drivers who kill pedestrians are rarely punished, no matter what the circumstances. The only vehicular deaths that less often result in punishment are those of cyclists. Not coincidentally, we learn right at the beginning of TFA that the police report claimed the "boy was crossing the street on his bicycle" even though that was entirely a lie. This is a sort of code, written by a "normal" adult who empathizes with drivers and not with pedestrians, which other such "normal" adults can read and understand without having to think. Only extraordinary acts of driving cruelty, like killing a child in a suburban cul-de-sac or mowing down a parade, can break through the stupor of official carelessness and lead to consequences. When multiple automobiles are involved, LEOs and prosecutors can empathize with both parties, so justice isn't so uncommon.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    I'm not sure where one can find justice in this situation. People generally don't go out with the intent to kill in their car. There are many people who drive with far too little care. If I am honest, I have done it before in my life. I don't think I know a single driver who hasn't. The problem (or lack thereof, I suppose) is that there usually aren't any consequences to that lack of care. People drive terribly badly all the time and even still, death is quite uncommon. Think of the worst drivers you know. How many of them have killed people? We all need to drive much more carefully. Would harsher penalties bring that about? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I certainly would not call it justice to destroy yet another person's life in retaliation for being stupid and unlucky at the same time. One death seems unjust enough for me. Adding more misery to the pile does not make me happier. Speaking as a person who has mostly given up driving (I have driven less than once a year in the last decade), I would prefer simply to make licenses almost impossible to get. Most people are not able to take the task seriously enough, no matter what the risk, IMHO.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > There are many people who drive with far too little care. If I am honest, I have done it before in my life. I don't think I know a single driver who hasn't. I think that's exactly the point OP is making. We have this culture of driving two-ton machines around with little care. It's so culturally institutionalized that when things inevitably go wrong, we sweep it under the rug even though we'd harshly punish a similar level of negligence in a different context.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Yes, that's it exactly. It's interesting for me to recognize the little "tells" that point out the contradictions we habitually ignore, that must be ignored to continue living as we live. This sort of routine police report falsehood is one of those. Of course there was no bicycle involved, they were fishing for goodness' sake. There was no bicycle at the scene, mangled in the way the boy's body was mangled. However, the cop on the scene had decided that the driver (and perhaps more importantly his employer and that employer's insurance company) should not be held responsible for driving too fast. (Can you stop when you notice children in the road? No? Then you're driving too fast!) The most effective way to ensure that irresponsibility was to place the boy beyond the pale of potential victimhood, on a bicycle. It would be interesting for a sociologist to do a study of police reports on deaths of cyclists in traffic. Whenever the report didn't include a picture of a mangled bicycle, the sociologist could interview witnesses to see if they would mention a bicycle without being prompted to do so. We might find that mischaracterizing pedestrians as cyclists is a very common thing.
benibela 10y ago
And how would a self-driving car has swerved?
frankzinger 10y ago
Oncoming traffic would've been to the left.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  And perhaps caused the oncoming car to swerve and hit both kids, or killed a family of six in a minivan. The problem really isn't what happened in the moment where the decision had to be made, but what led to that situation. Could the driver have driven more slowly, did the kids cross without looking, was he looking at his radio right before this happened? The answers to those questions seem much more important than the 100ms he had to decide when the kids were right in front of him.
phaed 10y ago
Left would probably have killed them both.
oftenwrong 10y ago
It seems more like a rationalisation. In the brief moment between seeing the boy and swerving it is unlikely that he had the time or situational awareness to consider his options. By believing that he would have killed a boy anyway, regardless of his choice, he avoids judging that he could have made the wrong choice, and so he avoids crushing doubt and regret.
- tmd83 10y ago
  He might well be rationalizing but this man doesn't seem to be without crushing regret.
- jsz0 10y ago
  > unlikely that he had the time or situational awareness to consider his options. He probably had at least an instinctual understanding of how maneuverable his automobile was.

Sorry - nerd in me but: He could have either gone straight or swerved right. He couldn't have swerved left?

by 13of40 10y ago

Sorry - nerd in me but: He could have either gone straight or swerved right. He couldn't have swerved left?

It was a long truck - a landscaping trailer hitched to its back. I would guess that sharp enough movements would not have done something constructive, so if the vehicle was already coming right around a curve, or going fast enough, they could have let off a little to go "straight" or continued to go "right", but going left would have done nothing reasonable. In the article, though, the driver phrases it as them being too close, and turning just meaning hitting one or the other, so perhaps they came out into the street and he was just going too fast.

mackal 10y ago
It also said they were just fishing, so it's possible there wasn't really room to go the other direction without killing himself.

kodfodrasz 10y ago

There was an investigation and court case about the accident, as the article mentions. If the driver would have been guilty, probably he would have been punished. I think some pretty unfortunate situation arose, maybe the children were also not careful enough, it doesn't really matter anymore. The driver had to make a decision in a split second. Probably he already instinctively did some action by the time he got to think about the situation, and the "decision" is a rationalization of a situation he was just as well victim of, where he also didn't have any control.

jessaustin 10y ago
If the driver would have been guilty, probably he would have been punished. In USA, this assumption is usually wrong. Drivers who kill pedestrians are rarely punished, no matter what the circumstances. The only vehicular deaths that less often result in punishment are those of cyclists. Not coincidentally, we learn right at the beginning of TFA that the police report claimed the "boy was crossing the street on his bicycle" even though that was entirely a lie. This is a sort of code, written by a "normal" adult who empathizes with drivers and not with pedestrians, which other such "normal" adults can read and understand without having to think. Only extraordinary acts of driving cruelty, like killing a child in a suburban cul-de-sac or mowing down a parade, can break through the stupor of official carelessness and lead to consequences. When multiple automobiles are involved, LEOs and prosecutors can empathize with both parties, so justice isn't so uncommon.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  I'm not sure where one can find justice in this situation. People generally don't go out with the intent to kill in their car. There are many people who drive with far too little care. If I am honest, I have done it before in my life. I don't think I know a single driver who hasn't. The problem (or lack thereof, I suppose) is that there usually aren't any consequences to that lack of care. People drive terribly badly all the time and even still, death is quite uncommon. Think of the worst drivers you know. How many of them have killed people? We all need to drive much more carefully. Would harsher penalties bring that about? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I certainly would not call it justice to destroy yet another person's life in retaliation for being stupid and unlucky at the same time. One death seems unjust enough for me. Adding more misery to the pile does not make me happier. Speaking as a person who has mostly given up driving (I have driven less than once a year in the last decade), I would prefer simply to make licenses almost impossible to get. Most people are not able to take the task seriously enough, no matter what the risk, IMHO.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > There are many people who drive with far too little care. If I am honest, I have done it before in my life. I don't think I know a single driver who hasn't. I think that's exactly the point OP is making. We have this culture of driving two-ton machines around with little care. It's so culturally institutionalized that when things inevitably go wrong, we sweep it under the rug even though we'd harshly punish a similar level of negligence in a different context.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Yes, that's it exactly. It's interesting for me to recognize the little "tells" that point out the contradictions we habitually ignore, that must be ignored to continue living as we live. This sort of routine police report falsehood is one of those. Of course there was no bicycle involved, they were fishing for goodness' sake. There was no bicycle at the scene, mangled in the way the boy's body was mangled. However, the cop on the scene had decided that the driver (and perhaps more importantly his employer and that employer's insurance company) should not be held responsible for driving too fast. (Can you stop when you notice children in the road? No? Then you're driving too fast!) The most effective way to ensure that irresponsibility was to place the boy beyond the pale of potential victimhood, on a bicycle. It would be interesting for a sociologist to do a study of police reports on deaths of cyclists in traffic. Whenever the report didn't include a picture of a mangled bicycle, the sociologist could interview witnesses to see if they would mention a bicycle without being prompted to do so. We might find that mischaracterizing pedestrians as cyclists is a very common thing.

benibela 10y ago

And how would a self-driving car has swerved?

frankzinger 10y ago

Oncoming traffic would've been to the left.

bluejekyll 10y ago
And perhaps caused the oncoming car to swerve and hit both kids, or killed a family of six in a minivan. The problem really isn't what happened in the moment where the decision had to be made, but what led to that situation. Could the driver have driven more slowly, did the kids cross without looking, was he looking at his radio right before this happened? The answers to those questions seem much more important than the 100ms he had to decide when the kids were right in front of him.

phaed 10y ago

Left would probably have killed them both.

oftenwrong 10y ago

It seems more like a rationalisation. In the brief moment between seeing the boy and swerving it is unlikely that he had the time or situational awareness to consider his options. By believing that he would have killed a boy anyway, regardless of his choice, he avoids judging that he could have made the wrong choice, and so he avoids crushing doubt and regret.

tmd83 10y ago
He might well be rationalizing but this man doesn't seem to be without crushing regret.
jsz0 10y ago
> unlikely that he had the time or situational awareness to consider his options. He probably had at least an instinctual understanding of how maneuverable his automobile was.