3 ms·

Rather than unintentionally causing a car accident, let's say it was an engineer bringing down production. You are saying Engineers need more negative incentive

by 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.

by rkk3 5y ago

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.