3 ms·

If you are impaired by your stress level you probably should not drive. Putting other at risk to reduce your perceived risk is not a decision for you to make.

HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
See my comment upthread about my wife being attacked. I can assure you that having been choked almost to the point of unconsciousness had her stress levels through the roof. But alone at night in a dark parking lot in a rural town, your solution is that she should not have been allowed to run to her car and drive off?
realce 5y ago
So when Jason Voorhees is hunting me down, the last camp councilor left, and I find the keys to the van... You think I shouldn't reduce that risk because of the public good?
- pas 5y ago
  Luke, use the guns! It's the US after all. So shoot the sensor and it'll detect a malfunction and allow you to drive!
- jpambrun 5y ago
  I am saying that in that case, you are not a good position to assess public good vs. "your good". Any human being would instinctively take slightly better odds for the themselves at the risk of much worst odds for others. With this assumption, maybe the car should take that decision.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    So the correct course of action in this situation (being chased by a murderer) is to make a decision that 100% ensures the denied-driver's death, in order to prevent the possible, and probably unlikely death of an bystander due to said driver's likely emotionally-impaired driving? No, that's not ethical reasoning at all.
    - jpambrun 5y ago
      It's not what I said; I didn't bring up Jason the serial killer.. my point was that you can't ask people to judge balance to risk when it comes to them.. That said, the false-negatives of people really being chased by serial killers is probably worth it compare to all real victims of dangerous or drunk drivers that could be saved.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago

See my comment upthread about my wife being attacked. I can assure you that having been choked almost to the point of unconsciousness had her stress levels through the roof. But alone at night in a dark parking lot in a rural town, your solution is that she should not have been allowed to run to her car and drive off?

realce 5y ago

So when Jason Voorhees is hunting me down, the last camp councilor left, and I find the keys to the van... You think I shouldn't reduce that risk because of the public good?

pas 5y ago
Luke, use the guns! It's the US after all. So shoot the sensor and it'll detect a malfunction and allow you to drive!
jpambrun 5y ago
I am saying that in that case, you are not a good position to assess public good vs. "your good". Any human being would instinctively take slightly better odds for the themselves at the risk of much worst odds for others. With this assumption, maybe the car should take that decision.
- kelnos 5y ago
  So the correct course of action in this situation (being chased by a murderer) is to make a decision that 100% ensures the denied-driver's death, in order to prevent the possible, and probably unlikely death of an bystander due to said driver's likely emotionally-impaired driving? No, that's not ethical reasoning at all.
  - jpambrun 5y ago
    It's not what I said; I didn't bring up Jason the serial killer.. my point was that you can't ask people to judge balance to risk when it comes to them.. That said, the false-negatives of people really being chased by serial killers is probably worth it compare to all real victims of dangerous or drunk drivers that could be saved.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]