6 ms·

> While a careful, attentive driver in a well-maintained vehicle certainly isn’t immune, their risk is much lower than someone who drives tired, drunk, or high

by wahern 4y ago

> While a careful, attentive driver in a well-maintained vehicle certainly isn’t immune, their risk is much lower than someone who drives tired, drunk, or high in a car with bald tires and bad brakes. You could have just stopped at "control". That's the fundamental dynamic by which we can explain this differential public sentiment--a sense of control or lack thereof, independent of whether that control actually exists, or whether that control translates to reduced risk. You went off the rails trying to link it to some objective reality; it's unnecessary, and in any event even the best of drivers takes on more risk while on the road than riding passenger rail. Control also figures into notions of ethics and justice. We're much more willing to accept losses when we attribute the proximate cause to "nature", "god", "chance", etc. But our moral calculus shifts dramatically when the decision of a particular person or group can be fingered (reasonably or not) as a primary factor. You already subtly did that by insinuating blame upon many traffic victims. (I'm not saying the insinuation was improper or impermissible... we all frequently do that; it's a staple of public discourse and even personal reflection. Just highlighting the extent to which notions of control color our views.)

roughly 4y ago
What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in control, because they're operating the motor vehicle, yet on the macro scale, they're operating a motor vehicle because of a whole host of other decisions outside their control. For most people, they don't have the option to not operate a motor vehicle and still live where they do, work where they do, etc. Likewise, the road construction and design operates a powerful influence on how they drive and how others drive around them, as well as how safely they can navigate to their destination - this too is out of their control. Regulations on the construction and maintenance of vehicles they and others on the road drive are also out of their control, but affect the environment in which the driver operates, and rules around who can drive and under what conditions similarly are not in the driver's control. The driver of the car exhibits control over only the narrowest and most immediate circumstances of their condition, and yet that veneer of control is sufficient for the majority of observers to put the blame nearly entirely on the driver for the outcome of their trip, absolving or ignoring the numerous other systems and decisions made which put them in circumstances in which accidents are alarmingly frequent. The article covers suicide, and here too the veneer of control at the point of action hides the entire complex environment in which someone dies of suicide - the social, economic, and political landscape that creates the conditions in which a former service member takes their life is not strictly personal, but we insist on treating it as such, because at the point of action, it is indeed the individual who commits the act.
- zip1234 4y ago
  It is definitely a veneer of control. People's brains and senses have all kinds of strange blind spots that make it a more dangerous activity than it seems. The whole 'zoning out' while driving down a stretch of road for example.
ericmay 4y ago
If only we could take this further. What’s more in “control” than driving? Walking and riding a bike. That’s ultimate control.
- gottastayfresh 4y ago
  Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient. Control ends where convenience begins (that's not to say its totally accurate, but the phrase looks nice).
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient Strictly by design and active and reinforced choice. Not for any other reason. Period.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Exactly. There are many places in the world where getting around by transit is much faster and more convenient than driving. It's just rare to find a place in the US where this is the case.
    - gottastayfresh 4y ago
      Absolutely! I wasn't implying otherwise. I think in the U.S. the inertia of both design and life choices is more of the problem -- I think convenience captures both of these issues in their present state. I use convenience here not to suggest actual convenience, but the appearance of convenience, much in the way that it's not really control, but the appearance of control that makes us register the preferability of the personal car.
- egypturnash 4y ago
  When I am on a bike I am definitely not in control of all the people in cars around me, especially the ones who are drunk, are assholes, or are badly-programmed robots who barely know what a “bicycle” is.
thehappypm 4y ago
Yep. We don’t fear things under our control. Do I fear driving my car? No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). I can drive defensively. I can stay focused. I can avoid dangerous intersections. I wear a seat belt and have a big safe SUV. Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. Animals are scary (spiders, snakes) because we can’t control them. Disease is scary when we can’t control it (cancer); less scary when we can cure it, even something like appendicitis seems tame because most hospitals can get it under control. It’s also why COVID is less scary to the general public, as it gets more under control (via vaccines and treatments and prior infection immunity).
- chasd00 4y ago
  > We don’t fear things under our control yeah, this is it. This is why people will drive through a blizzard in the middle of the night but will have a panic attack trying to board an airplane. In their car they feel in control but in an airplane they feel helpless and at completely dependent on the pilot/crew/airplane.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    A relative of this feeling is knowledge. I have thousands of miles of snow driving experience in my car. I have no fucking clue how airplanes work and how they handle turbulence.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). Part of the problem is that this control is much more of an illusion than most people realize. In any car crash where there's at least two vehicles involved, often one driver is at fault, and the other is (or others are) more or less an innocent bystander, who may have been exercising all the care and attentiveness in the world. That person was certainly not able to control their safety in that situation. And even when not involved in a crash, I don't think it's reasonable to say that one's safe outcome was caused even mostly due to their control over their vehicle. Much of it can be attributable to luck, traffic conditions, and the imperfect, but often sufficient, control that others were exercising over their vehicles. But I do agree with you that the perceived threat/seriousness of these various bad things does have a lot to do with the perception of individual control, whether or not individuals actually do have much control over them. I know a surprising number of people who get anxious flying on a plane, but don't think twice about getting in a car, despite there being a higher probability of injury or death from a car trip. Something I just realized: I feel like passengers in a car are also similarly not that concerned about the possibility of crashes, even though they are not actually in control of the vehicle. My first thought would be that they presumably know and trust the person who is driving, but that doesn't explain why people feel safe in taxis. I guess maybe people do feel less safe in taxis, though.

by wahern 4y ago

roughly 4y ago

What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in control, because they're operating the motor vehicle, yet on the macro scale, they're operating a motor vehicle because of a whole host of other decisions outside their control. For most people, they don't have the option to not operate a motor vehicle and still live where they do, work where they do, etc. Likewise, the road construction and design operates a powerful influence on how they drive and how others drive around them, as well as how safely they can navigate to their destination - this too is out of their control. Regulations on the construction and maintenance of vehicles they and others on the road drive are also out of their control, but affect the environment in which the driver operates, and rules around who can drive and under what conditions similarly are not in the driver's control. The driver of the car exhibits control over only the narrowest and most immediate circumstances of their condition, and yet that veneer of control is sufficient for the majority of observers to put the blame nearly entirely on the driver for the outcome of their trip, absolving or ignoring the numerous other systems and decisions made which put them in circumstances in which accidents are alarmingly frequent. The article covers suicide, and here too the veneer of control at the point of action hides the entire complex environment in which someone dies of suicide - the social, economic, and political landscape that creates the conditions in which a former service member takes their life is not strictly personal, but we insist on treating it as such, because at the point of action, it is indeed the individual who commits the act.

zip1234 4y ago
It is definitely a veneer of control. People's brains and senses have all kinds of strange blind spots that make it a more dangerous activity than it seems. The whole 'zoning out' while driving down a stretch of road for example.

ericmay 4y ago

If only we could take this further. What’s more in “control” than driving? Walking and riding a bike. That’s ultimate control.

gottastayfresh 4y ago
Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient. Control ends where convenience begins (that's not to say its totally accurate, but the phrase looks nice).
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Exactly, but it's not ultimately convenient Strictly by design and active and reinforced choice. Not for any other reason. Period.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Exactly. There are many places in the world where getting around by transit is much faster and more convenient than driving. It's just rare to find a place in the US where this is the case.
  - gottastayfresh 4y ago
    Absolutely! I wasn't implying otherwise. I think in the U.S. the inertia of both design and life choices is more of the problem -- I think convenience captures both of these issues in their present state. I use convenience here not to suggest actual convenience, but the appearance of convenience, much in the way that it's not really control, but the appearance of control that makes us register the preferability of the personal car.
egypturnash 4y ago
When I am on a bike I am definitely not in control of all the people in cars around me, especially the ones who are drunk, are assholes, or are badly-programmed robots who barely know what a “bicycle” is.

thehappypm 4y ago

Yep. We don’t fear things under our control. Do I fear driving my car? No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). I can drive defensively. I can stay focused. I can avoid dangerous intersections. I wear a seat belt and have a big safe SUV. Mass shootings are terrifying because there’s no sense of control. Animals are scary (spiders, snakes) because we can’t control them. Disease is scary when we can’t control it (cancer); less scary when we can cure it, even something like appendicitis seems tame because most hospitals can get it under control. It’s also why COVID is less scary to the general public, as it gets more under control (via vaccines and treatments and prior infection immunity).

chasd00 4y ago
> We don’t fear things under our control yeah, this is it. This is why people will drive through a blizzard in the middle of the night but will have a panic attack trying to board an airplane. In their car they feel in control but in an airplane they feel helpless and at completely dependent on the pilot/crew/airplane.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  A relative of this feeling is knowledge. I have thousands of miles of snow driving experience in my car. I have no fucking clue how airplanes work and how they handle turbulence.
kelnos 4y ago
> No, because I can control my safety (to an extent, anyway). Part of the problem is that this control is much more of an illusion than most people realize. In any car crash where there's at least two vehicles involved, often one driver is at fault, and the other is (or others are) more or less an innocent bystander, who may have been exercising all the care and attentiveness in the world. That person was certainly not able to control their safety in that situation. And even when not involved in a crash, I don't think it's reasonable to say that one's safe outcome was caused even mostly due to their control over their vehicle. Much of it can be attributable to luck, traffic conditions, and the imperfect, but often sufficient, control that others were exercising over their vehicles. But I do agree with you that the perceived threat/seriousness of these various bad things does have a lot to do with the perception of individual control, whether or not individuals actually do have much control over them. I know a surprising number of people who get anxious flying on a plane, but don't think twice about getting in a car, despite there being a higher probability of injury or death from a car trip. Something I just realized: I feel like passengers in a car are also similarly not that concerned about the possibility of crashes, even though they are not actually in control of the vehicle. My first thought would be that they presumably know and trust the person who is driving, but that doesn't explain why people feel safe in taxis. I guess maybe people do feel less safe in taxis, though.