3 ms·

> There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now. There were roughly 200 vehicle

> There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now. There were roughly 200 vehicle fatalities and 200,000 collisions for all of NYC in 2018. Numbers always benefit from context. > Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct? Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions. Again, if you are putting your hands on other people or their stuff, you should be prepared to explain why it was necessary for you to take that action

freejazz 4y ago
>Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions. How do you know? You are in the mind of the people that drive like this? You have reason to believe that the fact that they can avoid repercussions does not leave them feeling entitled to undertake such conduct? Must be amazing to have such wisdom. The reality is that you are being obtuse and a bad neighbor.
- lliamander 4y ago
  You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them? Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions. You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them? You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them? >Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions. Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay! >You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless. They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      > You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them? If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions. > Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay! Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents. Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. If your only response is to demand empirical evidence there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go. > They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just providing an alternative explanation. In the case of the driver from the article, given that he had already racked up thousands of dollars in fines before obscuring his plated, it is hard for me to imagine that he would feel anymore emboldened after. It sounds to me like he was just a bad driver.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        >If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions. The questions are the argument. They are the problems in your position that you have not answered that would be required for them to work. I don't need to offer up another alternatively entirely to make the cogent point that your assertion fails. This is just common sense. I have no idea why this needs to be explained to you. >Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents. Well you dismissed my point just as readily... it's obnoxious, isn't it? > Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal Weird point from the guy demanding a sort of rigor about this whole situation that is so beyond the application of common sense I'm left a little bit confused as to what point you'd ever think you were making that wasn't merely academic.

freejazz 4y ago

>Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions. How do you know? You are in the mind of the people that drive like this? You have reason to believe that the fact that they can avoid repercussions does not leave them feeling entitled to undertake such conduct? Must be amazing to have such wisdom. The reality is that you are being obtuse and a bad neighbor.

lliamander 4y ago
You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them? Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions. You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them? You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them? >Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions. Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay! >You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless. They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    > You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them? If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions. > Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay! Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents. Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. If your only response is to demand empirical evidence there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go. > They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just providing an alternative explanation. In the case of the driver from the article, given that he had already racked up thousands of dollars in fines before obscuring his plated, it is hard for me to imagine that he would feel anymore emboldened after. It sounds to me like he was just a bad driver.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions. The questions are the argument. They are the problems in your position that you have not answered that would be required for them to work. I don't need to offer up another alternatively entirely to make the cogent point that your assertion fails. This is just common sense. I have no idea why this needs to be explained to you. >Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents. Well you dismissed my point just as readily... it's obnoxious, isn't it? > Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal Weird point from the guy demanding a sort of rigor about this whole situation that is so beyond the application of common sense I'm left a little bit confused as to what point you'd ever think you were making that wasn't merely academic.