3 ms·
Just to continue my line of unpopular opinions about this: whoever chooses to put a car on the road instead of traveling in a way that hurts others less (walkin
by rdiddly 9y ago
Just to continue my line of unpopular opinions about this: whoever chooses to put a car on the road instead of traveling in a way that hurts others less (walking, transit, bike), is responsible at least in part for any damage, injury or death, just by being there. How many people die by wandering out in front of somebody else walking along? Nobody even has to call a cop, much less determine whose fault it was, because nothing happens.
- aetherson 9y agoDo you also believe that long haul trains are inherently immoral, given that they are more likely to cause bystander injuries/death than airplanes?
- rdiddly 9y agoWho said anything about morality? I'm talking about responsibility. Nice attempt to misrepresent my viewpoint. I call foul. Responsibility lies with you, friend, not the machine. Besides, how many trains and planes do you pilot daily? Also a train, unlike a car, is not a frivolous convenience operated by a privileged individual who has several other less-objectionable choices available for the purpose. And ironically if everybody got out of cars and onto trains they would actually be cutting the danger to others by a large factor.
- rboyd 9y agosent from your mobile phone, made possible by an 8 year old slave working in the cobalt mines.
- rdiddly 9y agoWhere's yours sent from, an angel's ass? Anyway let me know when all my evil deeds finally make you innocent so I can take a rest.
- oxymoran 9y agoThis is called comparative negligence. The theory being that there really is no such thing as an “accident” and that generally all parties involved share some negligence in causality. Obviously there are still freak occurrences. Courts adjust damages based on this all the time. People slip and fall and hold business liable all the time.