34 ms·

I think we all agree that there is a moral imperative to stop. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral impera

by rsj_hn 8y ago

I think we all agree that there is a moral imperative to stop. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Laws generally don't work well when they attempt a high resolution of morality, because the law can only approximate justice, and the more complex the approximation, the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes, which is itself unjust. The specific problem here is who decides whether the driver did "enough"? The driver can say "If I tried to slam on the brakes, I was afraid my car would spin out of control" or "If I tried to swerve away, I was afraid I might collide with someone". They might say "I thought there was a car behind me, and if I hit the brakes, I would injure that person. It was an honest mistake that the car which used to be behind was no longer there." Etc. Then you have to decide whether you believe them. In an environment where someone is innocent and must be proven guilty, you don't get a whole lot more precision by adding more precision to the law. Or do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? Also, that leaves a lot of discretion to the prosecutor, which may be abused, or imposed arbitrarily, and is ambiguous. So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. The other option is to have clear responsibilities. The pedestrian must do X. The driver must do Y. If the driver does Y, he is not charged. When both X and Y are followed, there can be no accident. But "Must do all you can" is not clearly defined. "Not speeding, obeying traffic signs" -- this is more clearly defined. So in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. It's a reasonable trade off. It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice.

purple_ducks 8y ago
I thought it would have been a much simpler case of "Driving without due care and attention" of which both Uber and the human driver were guilty of.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  But you need to define "due care". I gave a summary of the AZ definition of the due care that applied to both drivers and pedestrians. E.g. pedestrian has to make sure to cross at cross walks, driver has to obey traffic signs and yield to those with right of way, etc. If you use a circular definition of "due care" and make it something like "due care means you must take all action that is reasonable to avoid an accident" you've again ducked the issue of giving due care a well defined meaning.
craigsmansion 8y ago
> But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at road safety. > the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. > do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? That's framing the debate. If you hit someone with your car, you're guilty of hitting someone with your car. There is no "presumption of innocence". > So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. No. No ambiguity, and no matching moral outcomes, but improving road safety. > in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. But it's not more clear, and moral precision in not a goal. > It's a reasonable trade off. Here I should draw up the statistics of accidents involving cars and pedestrians in Arizona and Germany, but I don't think that's necessary. > It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, > but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice. That's just an incredibly U.S. centered point of view. I don't mind but your parent was talking about the German system. Maybe AZ works in comparison to the laws in other states with a very car-centered way-of-life, but in comparison to Germany it's really just bat-shit insane if the goal is improving road safety, but granted, that might not be the case.
- stilley2 8y ago
  > "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them?
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them? The rule over here is that a driver must always be in control of their vehicle. Exceptional circumstances such as those you describe (which are completely and utterly unlike those of the Uber case) would act as mitigating factor, possibly down to no fault if there was no way for a reasonable driver to avoid the accident. But the default state of things is that if you decide to put yourself in control of a multi-tons vehicle, you better be able to handle it or the consequences of your recklessness.
jschwartzi 8y ago
All of those ambiguities can be resolved by a court trial. The whole point of trying in court is to decide how the law applies in a particular case. The ambiguity is actually a feature because it leaves it up to the individual but clearly requires the individual to try to avoid hitting pedestrians. As opposed to Arizona where they very clearly value human life less than your right to get to work early.
craftinator 8y ago
This is the most detailed and well reasoned comment I've read here. Thank you for your thoughts!

by rsj_hn 8y ago

purple_ducks 8y ago

I thought it would have been a much simpler case of "Driving without due care and attention" of which both Uber and the human driver were guilty of.

rsj_hn 8y ago
But you need to define "due care". I gave a summary of the AZ definition of the due care that applied to both drivers and pedestrians. E.g. pedestrian has to make sure to cross at cross walks, driver has to obey traffic signs and yield to those with right of way, etc. If you use a circular definition of "due care" and make it something like "due care means you must take all action that is reasonable to avoid an accident" you've again ducked the issue of giving due care a well defined meaning.

craigsmansion 8y ago

> But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at road safety. > the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. > do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? That's framing the debate. If you hit someone with your car, you're guilty of hitting someone with your car. There is no "presumption of innocence". > So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. No. No ambiguity, and no matching moral outcomes, but improving road safety. > in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. But it's not more clear, and moral precision in not a goal. > It's a reasonable trade off. Here I should draw up the statistics of accidents involving cars and pedestrians in Arizona and Germany, but I don't think that's necessary. > It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, > but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice. That's just an incredibly U.S. centered point of view. I don't mind but your parent was talking about the German system. Maybe AZ works in comparison to the laws in other states with a very car-centered way-of-life, but in comparison to Germany it's really just bat-shit insane if the goal is improving road safety, but granted, that might not be the case.

stilley2 8y ago
> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them?
- masklinn 8y ago
  > Even if a pedestrian runs out onto a highway and it's physically impossible for you to avoid hitting them? The rule over here is that a driver must always be in control of their vehicle. Exceptional circumstances such as those you describe (which are completely and utterly unlike those of the Uber case) would act as mitigating factor, possibly down to no fault if there was no way for a reasonable driver to avoid the accident. But the default state of things is that if you decide to put yourself in control of a multi-tons vehicle, you better be able to handle it or the consequences of your recklessness.

jschwartzi 8y ago

All of those ambiguities can be resolved by a court trial. The whole point of trying in court is to decide how the law applies in a particular case. The ambiguity is actually a feature because it leaves it up to the individual but clearly requires the individual to try to avoid hitting pedestrians. As opposed to Arizona where they very clearly value human life less than your right to get to work early.

craftinator 8y ago

This is the most detailed and well reasoned comment I've read here. Thank you for your thoughts!