5 ms·
I legitimately cannot tell if you are serious or joking.
by OrangeMonkey 4y ago
I legitimately cannot tell if you are serious or joking.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 4y agoDead serious. Why would I take on more risk
- OrangeMonkey 4y agoI wasn't judging, I just couldn't tell if it was satire or reality. Thanks!
- ldjkfkdsjnv 4y agoI'm more confused why people are outraged at me wanting to protect my own life, or that I would need to feel judged for driving a bigger car. I'm a responsible driver and a regular citizen.
- anigbrowl 4y agoAs has been explained to you before, you're just dumping the risk onto others. There's nothing especially praiseworthy about this.
- MereInterest 4y agoBecause part of being a responsible driver is minimizing harm dealt to those around you. In the same way that that requires driving at the speed limit, stopping at cross walks, and signaling before turning, it also requires having a bumper that would minimize fatalities when hitting a pedestrian. (Internal bleeding from a chest-height bumper is much harder to survive than a broken leg from a leg-height bumper.) The difference is that the former are required by both law and morality, while the latter is only required by morality.
- frumper 4y agoYou make assumptions that he’ll actually cause harm. I’ve never hit a pedestrian in my car. I’ve never hit someone on a bike. No one close to me that I know of has either. I know quite a few people that have had their cars hit by drunk drivers or reckless drivers.
- MereInterest 4y agoI don't think that assumption is required here. Whenever predicting the future, it must be dealt in probabilities, not certainties. So if you're playing poker, you must evaluate the strength of your hand based on the cards dealt so far. Retroactively saying that a decision was made correctly because the cards drawn favored it isn't a useful analysis. In the same way, it isn't necessary to assume that he will cause harm, only that it increases the likelihood of causing harm. With a larger car, a driver is less able to see pedestrians, and children/shorter adults may be blocked from view entirely. Pedestrian injuries and deaths are on the rise in the US, opposite the general trend elsewhere. The primary difference is the prevalence of unnecessarily large cars in the US.
- frumper 4y agoThe probability of dying from a car as a pedestrian in 2020 is 0.2% and that includes people committing suicide by car. Dying in a traffic accident with another car is 1.1%. If you're playing the odds in poker, you worry about the latter more than the former.
- bch 4y agoDo you consider that decision as contributing to an arms race?
- TakeBlaster16 4y agoWhat's the alternative? Should he choose to risk dying in a crash for the nebulous greater good of lowering the average size of vehicles on the road? This problem will not be solved by individual drivers acting against their own self-interest. It needs to be solved at a societal level, probably with regulations on maximum vehicle size (which already exist, but are being worked around by mfrs) Signed, A Miata driver. If I ever get in a wreck, I'm guaranteed to lose, but at least I'll go out in style.
- celtain 4y agoYes, people should absolutely feel a social obligation to make at least some concessions to the greater good. While this isn't a complete substitute for regulations that systematically fix issues causes by negative externalities, I'd rather live in a society where a lot of problems are avoided because my fellow citizens generally care about my well being, rather than one in which the government needs to intervene left and right.
- seer-zig 4y agoWhat do they do when the society around them doesn't care and is reckless? For example, because drinking is so ingrained in many societies today, you have to do what you can to protect yourself from drunk drives.
- jen20 4y agoSure, it is. I have an SUV, because everyone else here has pickup trucks, and almost nobody can drive to save their own goddamn lives let alone mine. If raised trucks were not allowed, I would drive a sedan.
- letsgo39 4y agobecause you would have some consideration for other people. But hey, there's no law that says you have to care so you can keep thinking the way you're thinking.
- plandis 4y agoHonestly it seems like a weird take to say people should care more about strangers than their own family. As long as SUVs exist on the road I feel like it’s a safety benefit for my family to have a similarly sized vehicle to protect my wife and child. I can’t control what others do but I can control what I do to keep my family safe.
- blehn 4y agoYou _are_ taking on more risk — to the other drivers on the road. That's the crux of the post.
- MereInterest 4y agoAnd this is the exact reason why additional regulation is necessary. Because each individual would pick the option that minimizes their own risk, while maximizing the total risk, the choice cannot be left to individual choices.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoWell, there are individuals with at least a tiny shred of ethics, but you don't tend tofind them in a tacoma with a pristine bed
- kingkongjaffa 4y agoSadly we’re in a phase of rampant individualism, regardless of any detriment to others. Larger cars also make roads more dangerous for all users, because the lost visibility means attentive drivers cannot see and plan further down the road with a huge suv in front of them. Reading the road is a key skill for safe driving, large cars hamper everyone’s ability to do this.
- anonu 4y ago> we’re in a phase of rampant individualism This is the history of the US from its foundation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nemo44x 4y agoIndividualism is a core feature of capitalism and the enlightenment. Group identities are cancer and although not a requirement of, parliamentary (democracy) emerged precisely with capitalism and the individualism it requires.
- winkeltripel 4y agoAncient Athens, the Romans, and the Phoenicians would seem to disagree.
- nemo44x 4y agoIt’s why I said it’s not a requirement of. But Feudal society was toppled by capitalism which was powered mainly by democracy.
- refurb 4y agoIf you think individualism isn't rampant elsewhere, you need to travel more.
- xani_ 4y agoSadly probably serious. Taxing bigger cars to the point it's noticeable to average driver is probably only realistic solution, even if that's unfair for people that just happen to have a bunch of kids
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]