6 ms·

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

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.
CalRobert 10y ago
More than punishment, road design goes a long way towards changing behaviour. When your neighbourhood's streets are designed for high speeds, people will drive at high speeds. Saying "I hit the kid accidentally", to me, seems a bit like saying "I decided to shoot my gun in random directions and accidentally hit a kid, so it's not my fault!". But I am apparently in the minority. It was most appalling when I lived and worked in LA and my coworkers would joke about murdering bicyclists without a second thought; never mind the fact that I kept my helmet on my desk and clearly cycled to work.
- Filligree 10y ago
  Another entry in the long, long list of reasons why I'll never move to the US. I'm having trouble imagining the environment that would give rise to such comments. Carelessness? Callousness? Either way, I don't want to be there. Ireland is nicer, and Denmark will be nicer yet.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Funny you should say that. I moved to Ireland a few years ago, and just returned from a week-long trip to Copenhagen yesterday. It was bliss for the cyclist. Interestingly, I had thought that separated infrastructure would be the primary benefit, but even on roads with shared space, the drivers were _vastly_ more considerate than where I've lived in the US (all California), with the potential exception of Berkeley.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Both of this and the patent comment are spot on. I'm also a cyclist, and rarely drive anywhere; but with two kids it's often easier. I definitely started driving more carefully as I've gotten older, had kids... I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly. The big switch for me was getting rid of the urgency related to driving (I also became a safer cyclist for a similar reason, expect cars to do the wrong thing and they won't disappoint you). The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. Anything that slows down the cars, is the thing at fault. The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? Try and enjoy the time you have to yourself, rather than trying to end it so quickly.
throwaway729 10y ago
A few more stories about idiotic drivers ending up behind bars for life would have an infinitely better calming effect than all the signage in the world, imo.
revelation 10y ago
This is being far far too apologetic for the completely rotten culture of driving. It starts with the traffic engineers. They call themselves that, but they are monkeys replicating designs from a 90s guidebook designed by older monkeys, with evidence never entering the picture. They care far more about keeping free parking spaces than validating the safety of their designs. It goes on with the drivers themselves, but you have covered that well. I'd just add that if you are operating a 2 ton machine and kill someone doing it out of recklessness or a lack of due care (which is the case in the vast majority of deaths, even collisions), of course there needs to be a penalty or it goes on. Killing someone with a gun because you left a bullet in and knocked the trigger is a lot more dramatic but not very much different. Not even a criminal penalty necessarily, but maybe just a 5 year driving ban. Right now in most countries it is basically impossible to lose your license, ever. If you do, you just drive on because the penalty for driving without is laughable. The final component are the car manufacturers, or more generally vehicle standards. Why exactly do cars need >70hp motors? I've driven a transporter fully loaded approaching 3 tons up the Tourmalet with that kind of engine. It did just fine. Nobody chauffeuring their breed the mile to school in the inner city needs a car an iota more powerful. And the engine is just the first thing in a long long list of issues. I don't think there is any other machine out there with a similar level of risk and damage caused that is so severely lacking in the most basic safety devices or generally designed and engineered with blatant disregard for these factors.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  'yazbo you appear to have been hellbanned. I can't see why, so you might be able to appeal to TPTB and get it reversed? To see this, open this thread in an incognito window. Your comments will probably disappear. I'm replying to the comment above yours because I can't reply to your comment.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
> 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. I second that. >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. Which just screws over anybody in a rural area
- mikekchar 10y ago
  > Which just screws over anybody in a rural area I actually live in a rural area. But I can see your point because I can't convince my wife to give up her car. We live about 2 km outside of a small town, so it's still close enough to walk to the grocery store, bar, restaurant, etc. We're also about 2 km from the bus terminal. It costs about $25 round trip (each) to get to the nearest city and we'll go every month or two. Expensive, but still quite a bit cheaper than a car. There are more rural locations than this so I can see the need (especially if you are a farmer, or something similar). Dangerous driving is more or less accepted in society, but if you depended on your license and had it routinely removed (as opposed to fines) when you acted poorly, I think it would go a long way to improving the situation. But we also need to improve support for people who choose not to drive. I grew up in Canada and it is much harder to live the lifestyle I live now. Not impossible, but you have to give up a lot more.
comstock 10y ago
One per theory I have is that humans optimize for a certain amount of risk. If roads get safer (straighter, wider, slower?, better road markings) they pay less attention, meaning that risk ultimately remains the same. There is apparently some evidence for this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The idea you describe is called risk compensation [0], and it has huge effects on many different human behaviors. It doesn't directly apply in this case, because the risk that matters for this is personal risk to a driver, not externalized risk to other travelers. Or maybe it could affect driving, but only if the Law re-internalized such risk by punishing drivers who kill pedestrians, which it doesn't do even though it would in any civilized society. The other re-internalization option would be for pedestrians and cyclists to travel in heavily armed packs... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

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.

CalRobert 10y ago

More than punishment, road design goes a long way towards changing behaviour. When your neighbourhood's streets are designed for high speeds, people will drive at high speeds. Saying "I hit the kid accidentally", to me, seems a bit like saying "I decided to shoot my gun in random directions and accidentally hit a kid, so it's not my fault!". But I am apparently in the minority. It was most appalling when I lived and worked in LA and my coworkers would joke about murdering bicyclists without a second thought; never mind the fact that I kept my helmet on my desk and clearly cycled to work.

Filligree 10y ago
Another entry in the long, long list of reasons why I'll never move to the US. I'm having trouble imagining the environment that would give rise to such comments. Carelessness? Callousness? Either way, I don't want to be there. Ireland is nicer, and Denmark will be nicer yet.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Funny you should say that. I moved to Ireland a few years ago, and just returned from a week-long trip to Copenhagen yesterday. It was bliss for the cyclist. Interestingly, I had thought that separated infrastructure would be the primary benefit, but even on roads with shared space, the drivers were _vastly_ more considerate than where I've lived in the US (all California), with the potential exception of Berkeley.
bluejekyll 10y ago
Both of this and the patent comment are spot on. I'm also a cyclist, and rarely drive anywhere; but with two kids it's often easier. I definitely started driving more carefully as I've gotten older, had kids... I used to drive way to fast on the highways, now I often find myself realizing that I'm driving to slowly. The big switch for me was getting rid of the urgency related to driving (I also became a safer cyclist for a similar reason, expect cars to do the wrong thing and they won't disappoint you). The idea that roads exist for cars is pervasive, and anyone who uses it for anything else is assumed to be in the wrong. Anything that slows down the cars, is the thing at fault. The next time you've left late, are running late, are about to miss something; you need to consider is that extra 2 minutes and the higher risk of getting in an accident worth it? Try and enjoy the time you have to yourself, rather than trying to end it so quickly.

throwaway729 10y ago

A few more stories about idiotic drivers ending up behind bars for life would have an infinitely better calming effect than all the signage in the world, imo.

revelation 10y ago

This is being far far too apologetic for the completely rotten culture of driving. It starts with the traffic engineers. They call themselves that, but they are monkeys replicating designs from a 90s guidebook designed by older monkeys, with evidence never entering the picture. They care far more about keeping free parking spaces than validating the safety of their designs. It goes on with the drivers themselves, but you have covered that well. I'd just add that if you are operating a 2 ton machine and kill someone doing it out of recklessness or a lack of due care (which is the case in the vast majority of deaths, even collisions), of course there needs to be a penalty or it goes on. Killing someone with a gun because you left a bullet in and knocked the trigger is a lot more dramatic but not very much different. Not even a criminal penalty necessarily, but maybe just a 5 year driving ban. Right now in most countries it is basically impossible to lose your license, ever. If you do, you just drive on because the penalty for driving without is laughable. The final component are the car manufacturers, or more generally vehicle standards. Why exactly do cars need >70hp motors? I've driven a transporter fully loaded approaching 3 tons up the Tourmalet with that kind of engine. It did just fine. Nobody chauffeuring their breed the mile to school in the inner city needs a car an iota more powerful. And the engine is just the first thing in a long long list of issues. I don't think there is any other machine out there with a similar level of risk and damage caused that is so severely lacking in the most basic safety devices or generally designed and engineered with blatant disregard for these factors.

jessaustin 10y ago
'yazbo you appear to have been hellbanned. I can't see why, so you might be able to appeal to TPTB and get it reversed? To see this, open this thread in an incognito window. Your comments will probably disappear. I'm replying to the comment above yours because I can't reply to your comment.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

> 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. I second that. >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. Which just screws over anybody in a rural area

mikekchar 10y ago
> Which just screws over anybody in a rural area I actually live in a rural area. But I can see your point because I can't convince my wife to give up her car. We live about 2 km outside of a small town, so it's still close enough to walk to the grocery store, bar, restaurant, etc. We're also about 2 km from the bus terminal. It costs about $25 round trip (each) to get to the nearest city and we'll go every month or two. Expensive, but still quite a bit cheaper than a car. There are more rural locations than this so I can see the need (especially if you are a farmer, or something similar). Dangerous driving is more or less accepted in society, but if you depended on your license and had it routinely removed (as opposed to fines) when you acted poorly, I think it would go a long way to improving the situation. But we also need to improve support for people who choose not to drive. I grew up in Canada and it is much harder to live the lifestyle I live now. Not impossible, but you have to give up a lot more.

comstock 10y ago

One per theory I have is that humans optimize for a certain amount of risk. If roads get safer (straighter, wider, slower?, better road markings) they pay less attention, meaning that risk ultimately remains the same. There is apparently some evidence for this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...

jessaustin 10y ago
The idea you describe is called risk compensation [0], and it has huge effects on many different human behaviors. It doesn't directly apply in this case, because the risk that matters for this is personal risk to a driver, not externalized risk to other travelers. Or maybe it could affect driving, but only if the Law re-internalized such risk by punishing drivers who kill pedestrians, which it doesn't do even though it would in any civilized society. The other re-internalization option would be for pedestrians and cyclists to travel in heavily armed packs... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation