5 ms·

Given my observations of how frequently and flagrantly (and objectively) drivers (and other road users) break laws put in place to keep all the users of our pub

Given my observations of how frequently and flagrantly (and objectively) drivers (and other road users) break laws put in place to keep all the users of our public infrastructure (including themselves) safe, I'll have to go with a). If your definition of being responsible explicitly allows for breaking such laws, you may want to re-evaluate it. I'm not interested in hearing the word "anecdotal", either. Check out DUI statistics if you want bite-size proof that vast swaths of the population are fundamentally unfit to be driving, or show me data to back up your own point that the roads are not full of irresponsible drivers. Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alone, 3,166 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers." (from NHTSA: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving)

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Oh quit your puritanical hand wringing. Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade, sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly enough to attract law enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that is mostly good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs people are for the most part not interested. Society at large does not demand the same religious adherence to traffic rules as you do. More people were killed by fires (a hazard that most people would not consider to be a Big Problem(TM)) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted drivers. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...
- caconym_ 7y ago
  > puritanical > religious Nice. Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most drivers are irresponsible but it's fine". If you can support the former with hard data, great, let's see it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not share, and it's not something I'm interested in discussing because there is zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of fruit.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    There's no regression whatsoever. I am telling you, your definition of "responsible" (and by implication irresponsible) is not shared by society at large. I have told you this in several ways. Since apparently my last way of phrasing it wasn't easy to deflect now you're trying to straw-man me. What sort of citation do you want? You said ~3k people are killed by distracted drivers and implied that it's a regular occurrence and a Problem(TM). I pointed out (with citation) that that's about the same number killed in fires, something infrequent enough that it's generally considered Not A Problem(TM). Make no mistake, preventable deaths are tragic but preventable deaths as a result of motor vehicles are not the epidemic you portray them to be. Of course further discussion will bear no fruit. Your mind is made up and will not be changed.
    - caconym_ 7y ago
      Pro tip: projection and strawmanning aren't good substitutes for reading comprehension skills, critical thinking skills, and the ability to form cogent responses in a discussion. It is my sincere recommendation that you work on the latter three, or possibly on your ability to simulate them when you aren't arguing in good faith.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Oh quit your puritanical hand wringing. Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade, sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly enough to attract law enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that is mostly good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs people are for the most part not interested. Society at large does not demand the same religious adherence to traffic rules as you do. More people were killed by fires (a hazard that most people would not consider to be a Big Problem(TM)) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted drivers. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...

caconym_ 7y ago
> puritanical > religious Nice. Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most drivers are irresponsible but it's fine". If you can support the former with hard data, great, let's see it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not share, and it's not something I'm interested in discussing because there is zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of fruit.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  There's no regression whatsoever. I am telling you, your definition of "responsible" (and by implication irresponsible) is not shared by society at large. I have told you this in several ways. Since apparently my last way of phrasing it wasn't easy to deflect now you're trying to straw-man me. What sort of citation do you want? You said ~3k people are killed by distracted drivers and implied that it's a regular occurrence and a Problem(TM). I pointed out (with citation) that that's about the same number killed in fires, something infrequent enough that it's generally considered Not A Problem(TM). Make no mistake, preventable deaths are tragic but preventable deaths as a result of motor vehicles are not the epidemic you portray them to be. Of course further discussion will bear no fruit. Your mind is made up and will not be changed.
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    Pro tip: projection and strawmanning aren't good substitutes for reading comprehension skills, critical thinking skills, and the ability to form cogent responses in a discussion. It is my sincere recommendation that you work on the latter three, or possibly on your ability to simulate them when you aren't arguing in good faith.