3 ms·

Delivery is only worth it if getting a DWI is on the table. Literally the only time I get DoorDash/GrubHub/etc is when I'm drunk and shouldn't drive. A DWI tick

Delivery is only worth it if getting a DWI is on the table. Literally the only time I get DoorDash/GrubHub/etc is when I'm drunk and shouldn't drive. A DWI ticket and the expense that'll incur is well worth paying someone a delivery fee. EDIT: I suppose I have to also mention that killing people by my drunk driving is also a good reason to use DoorDash. Just thought maybe that was obvious...

InitialLastName 4y ago
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  Uh that has nothing to do with "valuing cars over human lives"? That just makes sense?
  - diffxx 4y ago
    Actually the original comment makes complete sense. To only give tickets for drunk driving essentially makes it so that drivers have blanket immunity from any criminal liability for their behavior, no matter how reckless, so long as they are not drunk on alcohol. By rarely holding reckless drivers responsible for their behavior, we are essentially incentivizing that behavior. From the car's perspective, the current law is great. Many people who would consider alternative transportation such as cycling or walking are discouraged by the fact that these activities are much more dangerous for you than driving. If you get hit by a reckless SUV at 40mph while you are in a car, you have a pretty good chance of surviving. Your chances of surviving as a pedestrian or cyclist are drastically lower. Rationally, many people then opt for the car (for me, must American roads are too dangerous for cycling so I only walk to get around even though I do enjoy cycling). This is a vicious cycle that ensures that cars will perpetually dominate our streets. I fear self driving cars (or an infinite series of failed attempts at self driving cars) are only going to make this worse. For all of the benefits that cars do offer us in our daily lives, from my perspective, it seems clear that the scales have tipped way too far in favor of the car. Different legal regimes are possible. For example, we could change the law so that by default drivers are assumed responsible for any collision they were a part of. In the case of a driver killing a pedestrian, the burden should fall on the driver to prove that it was the pedestrians fault. The current enforcement of the law seems to almost imply that pedestrians and cyclists are suicidal so if they die in a collision, it must have been their fault somehow. Surely we could require drivers to drive in such a way that they have very low probability of injuring anyone? Or would that be an unimaginable infringement on the rights of the driver (and car)? The beauty of a system that actually holds drivers accountable for the consequences of their actions is that we actually wouldn't have much need to enforce laws like speeding and running red lights because few would want to take the risk of losing their license if they were involved in a crash.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Your comment is the pearl clutcher's equivalent of a grammatical nitpick. Of course nobody wants to kill anybody (to a first order approximation). But killing people is rare, far rarer than DUI tickets (google up death stats vs tickets issued stats and crunch the numbers for yourself if you want). The most likely bad outcome of driving drunk is a ticket so that's the bad outcome people cite because it's the one most likely to happen by a long shot.
- stuff4ben 4y ago
  Right, I thought it was a given that killing someone by my drunk driving is also not worth it. Guess I had to spell that out for ya. sheesh...
dtgriscom 4y ago
Of course, there's also the risk of causing an accident...
MichaelCollins 4y ago
I just walk. Not an option for everybody I know, but the unwalkability of American cities is greatly exaggerated in my experience.
- skrtskrt 4y ago
  LA's walkability is terrible in a lot of places, but people also just refuse to walk distances that people regularly walk in NY or Chicago. There's just an attitude that everything starts by getting in the car.
skunkworker 4y ago
The only time I have recently used delivery is if I am sick and unable to go pick up the takeout. Otherwise it's too expensive and a $15 plate turns into a $29 total cost. I'll still get pizza delivered though from some places.
- stuff4ben 4y ago
  Oh absolutely makes sense when you're sick! Every time I get a COVID shot/booster, the next day without fail I'm sick as a dog. My go to has been Panera Bread's broccoli cheddar soup and bread. And it's definitely worth the delivery fees, and tip to not have to get dressed and drive to the local restaurant.

InitialLastName 4y ago

LewisVerstappen 4y ago
Uh that has nothing to do with "valuing cars over human lives"? That just makes sense?
- diffxx 4y ago
  Actually the original comment makes complete sense. To only give tickets for drunk driving essentially makes it so that drivers have blanket immunity from any criminal liability for their behavior, no matter how reckless, so long as they are not drunk on alcohol. By rarely holding reckless drivers responsible for their behavior, we are essentially incentivizing that behavior. From the car's perspective, the current law is great. Many people who would consider alternative transportation such as cycling or walking are discouraged by the fact that these activities are much more dangerous for you than driving. If you get hit by a reckless SUV at 40mph while you are in a car, you have a pretty good chance of surviving. Your chances of surviving as a pedestrian or cyclist are drastically lower. Rationally, many people then opt for the car (for me, must American roads are too dangerous for cycling so I only walk to get around even though I do enjoy cycling). This is a vicious cycle that ensures that cars will perpetually dominate our streets. I fear self driving cars (or an infinite series of failed attempts at self driving cars) are only going to make this worse. For all of the benefits that cars do offer us in our daily lives, from my perspective, it seems clear that the scales have tipped way too far in favor of the car. Different legal regimes are possible. For example, we could change the law so that by default drivers are assumed responsible for any collision they were a part of. In the case of a driver killing a pedestrian, the burden should fall on the driver to prove that it was the pedestrians fault. The current enforcement of the law seems to almost imply that pedestrians and cyclists are suicidal so if they die in a collision, it must have been their fault somehow. Surely we could require drivers to drive in such a way that they have very low probability of injuring anyone? Or would that be an unimaginable infringement on the rights of the driver (and car)? The beauty of a system that actually holds drivers accountable for the consequences of their actions is that we actually wouldn't have much need to enforce laws like speeding and running red lights because few would want to take the risk of losing their license if they were involved in a crash.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Your comment is the pearl clutcher's equivalent of a grammatical nitpick. Of course nobody wants to kill anybody (to a first order approximation). But killing people is rare, far rarer than DUI tickets (google up death stats vs tickets issued stats and crunch the numbers for yourself if you want). The most likely bad outcome of driving drunk is a ticket so that's the bad outcome people cite because it's the one most likely to happen by a long shot.
stuff4ben 4y ago
Right, I thought it was a given that killing someone by my drunk driving is also not worth it. Guess I had to spell that out for ya. sheesh...

dtgriscom 4y ago

Of course, there's also the risk of causing an accident...

MichaelCollins 4y ago

I just walk. Not an option for everybody I know, but the unwalkability of American cities is greatly exaggerated in my experience.

skrtskrt 4y ago
LA's walkability is terrible in a lot of places, but people also just refuse to walk distances that people regularly walk in NY or Chicago. There's just an attitude that everything starts by getting in the car.

skunkworker 4y ago

The only time I have recently used delivery is if I am sick and unable to go pick up the takeout. Otherwise it's too expensive and a $15 plate turns into a $29 total cost. I'll still get pizza delivered though from some places.

stuff4ben 4y ago
Oh absolutely makes sense when you're sick! Every time I get a COVID shot/booster, the next day without fail I'm sick as a dog. My go to has been Panera Bread's broccoli cheddar soup and bread. And it's definitely worth the delivery fees, and tip to not have to get dressed and drive to the local restaurant.