3 ms·

Do you drive? How can you drive and not be aware of the 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and pretend you aren't part of that system.

by megy 9y ago

zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Do you program? How can you program and not be aware of the X deaths, Y privacy violations and pretend you aren't part of that system? Is every programmer in the world partly responsible for every death caused by every programming bug ever? Should we blame all civic engineers every time a bridge collapses? I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone.
- themarkn 9y ago
  >I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone. Massive misunderstanding. As a driver your actions form a part of the traffic around you, even responsible drivers are "attached" to the system and put pressure on it. Maybe one day somebody rear ends you and you are knocked forward into a crosswalk, or you break suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian and cause an accident behind you. Or maybe your very safe driving leaves enough room for somebody to take a foolish risk cutting in front of you and lose control of their car. Collectively society accepts that getting places quickly is worth the cost that we pay in human lives. And each road user agrees to the small risk of death/injury beyond their control in order to get somewhere.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
  I'd guess that in the US, at least, 99.2% of drivers never kill anyone while driving (including themselves). (back of the envelop, assuming 300,000,000 drivers driving for 60 years of their lives at a 40,000 per year death rate)
- squiggleblaz 9y ago
  It's almost impossible to drive a car without threatening small children and other people with lethal force. People regularly wait on the sides of roads when every traditional custom, convention and current law demands that car drivers stop, but they never do it. "I want to get to the shops quicker" is not an excuse for levelling a gun at someone and asking them to please step aside. Moreover, it is illegal to drive a car safely. If you try it, you will be pulled over. You may be fined or lose your licence. Try it and see. So yes, being a car driver does make you a dangerous one.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Unless you define what you mean by "drive a car safely" I don't see how one can even begin to evaluate that claim meaningfully.
incompatible 9y ago
Perhaps the same standard should be applied to human drivers: if a human makes a mistake and kills somebody, the rest should be taken off the road for retraining. I wonder how the issue developed when the automobile was first introduced. I remember something about needing to have a guy walking in front of the vehicle waving a warning flag, but apparently that didn't last long. Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It seems like a faulty analogy, unless you want to tell me that every Uber car is running unique software.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    Yeah, possibly. On one hand, the Uber setup should be examined for flaws. On the other hand, we shouldn't get paranoid about the occasional traffic death when we've already decided (for human drivers) that this is acceptable collateral damage in the transport system.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      The entire pitch for autonomous driving is that it's safer than human drivers. If that's false it's not clear why we should continue to allow Uber to test their work on public roads.
      - incompatible 9y ago
        It could be safer than human drivers and still cause quite a few deaths. We can't evaluate such statistics from one accident. We don't even know if this particular accident would have been avoided by a typical human driver (there was apparently one behind the wheel of the vehicle).
        9y ago
kazinator 9y ago
Not a meaningful counterargument here. Someone can not only drive, but have a history of having been an at-fault driver causing death, yet justifiably not believe that: public roads should be used for private testing such that the profit is private, but the harm is socialized; or that money compensates for lost lives.

Do you drive? How can you drive and not be aware of the 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and pretend you aren't part of that system.

by megy 9y ago

Do you drive? How can you drive and not be aware of the 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and pretend you aren't part of that system.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

Do you program? How can you program and not be aware of the X deaths, Y privacy violations and pretend you aren't part of that system? Is every programmer in the world partly responsible for every death caused by every programming bug ever? Should we blame all civic engineers every time a bridge collapses? I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone.

themarkn 9y ago
>I am an individual, not "part of a system". Simply being a driver doesn't make me a reckless or dangerous one. For example, 10K of those deaths involve DUI, and I am certainly not part of that system. I'm sure 95% of drivers never kill anyone. Massive misunderstanding. As a driver your actions form a part of the traffic around you, even responsible drivers are "attached" to the system and put pressure on it. Maybe one day somebody rear ends you and you are knocked forward into a crosswalk, or you break suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian and cause an accident behind you. Or maybe your very safe driving leaves enough room for somebody to take a foolish risk cutting in front of you and lose control of their car. Collectively society accepts that getting places quickly is worth the cost that we pay in human lives. And each road user agrees to the small risk of death/injury beyond their control in order to get somewhere.
11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
I'd guess that in the US, at least, 99.2% of drivers never kill anyone while driving (including themselves). (back of the envelop, assuming 300,000,000 drivers driving for 60 years of their lives at a 40,000 per year death rate)
squiggleblaz 9y ago
It's almost impossible to drive a car without threatening small children and other people with lethal force. People regularly wait on the sides of roads when every traditional custom, convention and current law demands that car drivers stop, but they never do it. "I want to get to the shops quicker" is not an excuse for levelling a gun at someone and asking them to please step aside. Moreover, it is illegal to drive a car safely. If you try it, you will be pulled over. You may be fined or lose your licence. Try it and see. So yes, being a car driver does make you a dangerous one.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Unless you define what you mean by "drive a car safely" I don't see how one can even begin to evaluate that claim meaningfully.

incompatible 9y ago

Perhaps the same standard should be applied to human drivers: if a human makes a mistake and kills somebody, the rest should be taken off the road for retraining. I wonder how the issue developed when the automobile was first introduced. I remember something about needing to have a guy walking in front of the vehicle waving a warning flag, but apparently that didn't last long. Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

emodendroket 9y ago
It seems like a faulty analogy, unless you want to tell me that every Uber car is running unique software.
- incompatible 9y ago
  Yeah, possibly. On one hand, the Uber setup should be examined for flaws. On the other hand, we shouldn't get paranoid about the occasional traffic death when we've already decided (for human drivers) that this is acceptable collateral damage in the transport system.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    The entire pitch for autonomous driving is that it's safer than human drivers. If that's false it's not clear why we should continue to allow Uber to test their work on public roads.
    - incompatible 9y ago
      It could be safer than human drivers and still cause quite a few deaths. We can't evaluate such statistics from one accident. We don't even know if this particular accident would have been avoided by a typical human driver (there was apparently one behind the wheel of the vehicle).
      - 9y ago

kazinator 9y ago

Not a meaningful counterargument here. Someone can not only drive, but have a history of having been an at-fault driver causing death, yet justifiably not believe that: public roads should be used for private testing such that the profit is private, but the harm is socialized; or that money compensates for lost lives.