3 ms·

>Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes Nonsense, we can implement draconian licensing laws and Orwellian medical record sharing la

>Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes Nonsense, we can implement draconian licensing laws and Orwellian medical record sharing laws to keep the at risk off the roads. The peasants can have all the strokes they want, just not on the roads. (The above is satire but it's proximity to viewpoints that aren't satire should make people uncomfortable.)

dandellion 4y ago
Or require redundant driving controls and a backup driver always present, if the main driver has a stroke the co-pilot takes over and drives. Where there's a will there's a way. Or take it to the limit and make driving so inconvenient that nobody drives, thereby solving the problem once and for all.
nkrisc 4y ago
The cool thing is we can choose where to arbitrarily draw lines between acceptable and not acceptable. I’d say we can choose to place that line somewhere between “regulating modifications to cars” and “draconian health examinations for licensing”. In your satirical scenario the methods needed in order to prevent strokes while driving are far less reasonable than the methods needed to regulate modifications to critical systems of cars, from feasibility of implementation to the effects on personal privacy and liberty. Therefore I think we can pretty easily distinguish the two and they are not really that similar.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  The point I was trying to highlight which predictably went over some heads is that just because you can prevent 99.99% of something doesn't mean that would not be an absolutely asinine endeavor with little payoff. Medical events, mechanical failures, software failures, they're all in the long tail of "rare causes of accidents". The fat part of the curve is made up of various flavors of willful dumb driver behavior. It is pure foley to direct more resources at those problems than the bare minimum needed to look like you're "doing something" so that the people who don't understand how likely these events are are placated. The bulk of resources spent toward safety should be allocated toward reducing dumb things drivers do.

dandellion 4y ago

Or require redundant driving controls and a backup driver always present, if the main driver has a stroke the co-pilot takes over and drives. Where there's a will there's a way. Or take it to the limit and make driving so inconvenient that nobody drives, thereby solving the problem once and for all.

nkrisc 4y ago

The cool thing is we can choose where to arbitrarily draw lines between acceptable and not acceptable. I’d say we can choose to place that line somewhere between “regulating modifications to cars” and “draconian health examinations for licensing”. In your satirical scenario the methods needed in order to prevent strokes while driving are far less reasonable than the methods needed to regulate modifications to critical systems of cars, from feasibility of implementation to the effects on personal privacy and liberty. Therefore I think we can pretty easily distinguish the two and they are not really that similar.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
The point I was trying to highlight which predictably went over some heads is that just because you can prevent 99.99% of something doesn't mean that would not be an absolutely asinine endeavor with little payoff. Medical events, mechanical failures, software failures, they're all in the long tail of "rare causes of accidents". The fat part of the curve is made up of various flavors of willful dumb driver behavior. It is pure foley to direct more resources at those problems than the bare minimum needed to look like you're "doing something" so that the people who don't understand how likely these events are are placated. The bulk of resources spent toward safety should be allocated toward reducing dumb things drivers do.