6 ms·

It's a systemic issue drivers are one stakeholder and many are responsible. Vehicle designers & manufactures, Urban Planners etc. > people respond better when

by rkk3 5y ago

It's a systemic issue drivers are one stakeholder and many are responsible. Vehicle designers & manufactures, Urban Planners etc. > people respond better when there are real costs associated with driving poorly The real cost is that driving kills 40,000 people a year in the US.

pm90 5y ago
The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Financial penalties or better designs have a more direct effect. Similar to how coal power plants kill thousands due to air pollution but don’t really care until they’re penalized financially or made to design systems to reduce emissions.
- aqme28 5y ago
  People don't react to incentives the same way that corporations do.
  - pm90 5y ago
    Congratulations for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
- rkk3 5y ago
  Rather than unintentionally causing a car accident, let's say it was an engineer bringing down production. You are saying Engineers need more negative incentives; they should loose there job for accidentally bringing down production. Bringing down production is obviously because they were personally negligent. This is blaming the engineer, when it is a failure of the system they are operating in. > The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. If I killed someone else with my car, even If I don't die, there are real Physical, Emotional and Financial costs.
  - pm90 5y ago
    This is a pretty silly comparison. If an engineer for a medical device fucked up resulting in the death of people, they would absolutely be fired and face legal consequences. Which is why there are very strict regulations around these things (including fines and potential criminal charges).
    - rkk3 5y ago
      plenty of decisions that result in the death of people in the medical industry and others suffer no consequences, but it's pointless to debate your unspecified hypothetical. Not sure how you can possibly look at something that kills 40,000 people in the US a year and chalk it up to personally responsibility of the Driver. I guess you live in an a less complicated world, must be nice.
      - pm90 5y ago
        > Not sure how you can possibly look at something that kills 40,000 people in the US a year and chalk it up to personally responsibility of the Driver. I guess you live in an a less complicated world, must be nice. If you tried to actually read what I’ve written you wouldn’t be creating straw man arguments. If you just wanna engage in snide personal attacks to placate your fragile ego, go ahead, it’s not really a discourse that interests me. To clarify the point, the reason for imposing fines to influence driver behavior isn’t to hold them responsible personally for every pedestrian fatality; that already happens when there is an accident with the drivers involved. The point of fines and regulations is to encourage drivers to drive better to reduce the chances of the accidents taking place. E.g. Speed limits encourage drivers to change their behavior so that we have fewer accidents.
        rkk3 5y ago
        > The point of fines and regulations is to encourage drivers to drive better to reduce the chances of the accidents taking place. E.g. Speed limits encourage drivers to change their behavior so that we have fewer accidents. Driver behavior is a factor, they have some responsibility, and yes you can modify behavior with incentives. But the world and most things in it are complicated systems & processes. The design of vehicles, the design of roads, the design of walk-ways are major factors etc. When you only promote solutions that have to deal with driver behavior, you are absolving all the other stakeholders of responsibility and de-facto blaming the driver.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Killing or injuring someone is not an externality. It's a horrible, traumatic event. Most people absolutely do not want to do it. I don't need fines to deter me - in fact, if it happened, the fine would be of vanishingly little concern. Also, almost every driver is also a pedestrian and has loved ones who are pedestrians.
  - pm90 5y ago
    > Killing or injuring someone is not an externality. I specifically mentioned the mortality rate, not the actual event of a driver being involved in an incident. Peoples driving habits aren’t changed by a statistic (mortality rate) even though unsafe driving directly contributes to that number.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Fair enough, but people don't need a statistic to care about the risks of car accidents; people are averse to them.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    I'm sure most people will agree. After it has happened. Then it's too late. Untill it happens it is definitely an externality to most.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      Don't think this is the correct usage of externality... It's more that it's an acceptable risk, until it happens. Externality would imply the vast majority of drivers who are never involved in fatal accidents contributed to causing the accidents but did not suffer its consequences.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Externality would imply the vast majority of drivers who are never involved in fatal accidents contributed to causing the accidents but did not suffer its consequences. Is that wrong? If 1000 drivers are being unsafe, are they not all contributing? Surely the one driver that actually causes a fatal accident doesn't absorb the blame from the other 999. And just about all drivers are unsafe sometimes and/or drive on roads that were designed with compromised safety.

by rkk3 5y ago

pm90 5y ago

The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Financial penalties or better designs have a more direct effect. Similar to how coal power plants kill thousands due to air pollution but don’t really care until they’re penalized financially or made to design systems to reduce emissions.

aqme28 5y ago
People don't react to incentives the same way that corporations do.
- pm90 5y ago
  Congratulations for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
rkk3 5y ago
Rather than unintentionally causing a car accident, let's say it was an engineer bringing down production. You are saying Engineers need more negative incentives; they should loose there job for accidentally bringing down production. Bringing down production is obviously because they were personally negligent. This is blaming the engineer, when it is a failure of the system they are operating in. > The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. If I killed someone else with my car, even If I don't die, there are real Physical, Emotional and Financial costs.
- pm90 5y ago
  This is a pretty silly comparison. If an engineer for a medical device fucked up resulting in the death of people, they would absolutely be fired and face legal consequences. Which is why there are very strict regulations around these things (including fines and potential criminal charges).
  - rkk3 5y ago
    plenty of decisions that result in the death of people in the medical industry and others suffer no consequences, but it's pointless to debate your unspecified hypothetical. Not sure how you can possibly look at something that kills 40,000 people in the US a year and chalk it up to personally responsibility of the Driver. I guess you live in an a less complicated world, must be nice.
    - pm90 5y ago
      > Not sure how you can possibly look at something that kills 40,000 people in the US a year and chalk it up to personally responsibility of the Driver. I guess you live in an a less complicated world, must be nice. If you tried to actually read what I’ve written you wouldn’t be creating straw man arguments. If you just wanna engage in snide personal attacks to placate your fragile ego, go ahead, it’s not really a discourse that interests me. To clarify the point, the reason for imposing fines to influence driver behavior isn’t to hold them responsible personally for every pedestrian fatality; that already happens when there is an accident with the drivers involved. The point of fines and regulations is to encourage drivers to drive better to reduce the chances of the accidents taking place. E.g. Speed limits encourage drivers to change their behavior so that we have fewer accidents.
      - rkk3 5y ago
        > The point of fines and regulations is to encourage drivers to drive better to reduce the chances of the accidents taking place. E.g. Speed limits encourage drivers to change their behavior so that we have fewer accidents. Driver behavior is a factor, they have some responsibility, and yes you can modify behavior with incentives. But the world and most things in it are complicated systems & processes. The design of vehicles, the design of roads, the design of walk-ways are major factors etc. When you only promote solutions that have to deal with driver behavior, you are absolving all the other stakeholders of responsibility and de-facto blaming the driver.
wolverine876 5y ago
> The mortality rate is an externality to most drivers. Killing or injuring someone is not an externality. It's a horrible, traumatic event. Most people absolutely do not want to do it. I don't need fines to deter me - in fact, if it happened, the fine would be of vanishingly little concern. Also, almost every driver is also a pedestrian and has loved ones who are pedestrians.
- pm90 5y ago
  > Killing or injuring someone is not an externality. I specifically mentioned the mortality rate, not the actual event of a driver being involved in an incident. Peoples driving habits aren’t changed by a statistic (mortality rate) even though unsafe driving directly contributes to that number.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Fair enough, but people don't need a statistic to care about the risks of car accidents; people are averse to them.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  I'm sure most people will agree. After it has happened. Then it's too late. Untill it happens it is definitely an externality to most.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Don't think this is the correct usage of externality... It's more that it's an acceptable risk, until it happens. Externality would imply the vast majority of drivers who are never involved in fatal accidents contributed to causing the accidents but did not suffer its consequences.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Externality would imply the vast majority of drivers who are never involved in fatal accidents contributed to causing the accidents but did not suffer its consequences. Is that wrong? If 1000 drivers are being unsafe, are they not all contributing? Surely the one driver that actually causes a fatal accident doesn't absorb the blame from the other 999. And just about all drivers are unsafe sometimes and/or drive on roads that were designed with compromised safety.