5 ms·

I don't understand the anger and disdain from people about others potentially hurting themselves. The only thing I can think of is they are jealous of someone w

I don't understand the anger and disdain from people about others potentially hurting themselves. The only thing I can think of is they are jealous of someone who doesn't have these sort of intrusive thoughts about safety all the time and how they get to do something cool like the OP every now and then.

thebigjewbowski 3y ago
I was thinking about something similar the other day — why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not? You know what vehicle I see all the time that doesn’t require a license or minimum age, doesn’t have any safety features and can go 15-20 mph alongside traffic and often on a city sidewalk amongst pedestrians? A bicycle ;)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- habosa 3y ago
  I’d really prefer not to kill anybody else I’m sharing the road with, all else equal. It would be quite traumatic for that persons family and for me too.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    True. Which is why I would like to make it the law that all motor vehicle occupants should wear helmets. This will mean saving billions of life years lost through traumatic brain injuries.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      What if the helmets were giant (unlike bike helmets, the rider doesn't have to carry the entire weight or air resistance). Then, instead of filling the helmets with hard styrofoam, we could fill them with something even softer, maybe a compressible gas. People could obviously store them in the vehicle. It might be annoying to wear them all the time, so we could mandate that cars detect when you are about to be in a crash and slam a helmet on your head. Although, come to think of it, it doesn't need to surround your whole head. What if we could make it just appear between your head and anything you were going to hit. Hey, we could even have those things hold the micro helmets. Since they are filled with air, we can use air pressure to deploy them fast, these flexible bags of air.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're kind of making their point for them. It's dumb to mandate helmets or any other specific technology because it removes the possibility for something better or for context-based decisionmaking. Suppose you ride your motorcycle into the desert and then lose your helmet into a canyon. Your phone is dead. Your choices are a thirty hour walk out of the desert which might cause you to die of dehydration, or riding your motorcycle without a helmet. Should you get a ticket for making the obvious choice?
        Shaanie 3y ago
        You can make the exact same example, except someone without a driving license finds a car. I doubt you're opposed to mandating driver licenses, though.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're not making the point you think you are. All a driver license proves is that you took a basic class as a teenager and have been paying the government a fee since then. You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.
        defrost 3y ago
        > You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum. This doesn't contribute to the upkeep of roads in the same manner as a yearly tax on those that use them. So no, not the same benefit at all.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're thinking of car tax and fuel tax. But also, the value of roads scales poorly with any of these things. The ability to have a package delivered to your front door is valuable regardless of whether or not you even have a car, and the value of it depends on what's in it rather than how much the truck cost. The most sensible way to fund any kind of basic infrastructure is from general revenues.
- neuronerdgirl 3y ago
  You not wearing a seatbelt puts other people in the vehicle at risk because your body becomes a massive flying object in the cabin when you are hit that can injure or kill others in the vehicle with you.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    You the sort of person who will tie down a bag of dog food or bag of soup cans when you load them into a vehicle without a trunk?
    - Swizec 3y ago
      Yes. I always put seatbelts on big stuff in the rear seats
    - defrost 3y ago
      Absolutely. Also the person that ties down loads with multiple ropes | straps truckies hitches and stoppers. Not to mention stopping every few hundred miles to check tensions and reset as required. Loose loads are a pain in the arse and often dangerous. A soup can rolling loose and jamming up under a brake or accelerator pedal is something that really happens .. and it's no fun when it does.
      - nine_k 3y ago
        BTW I wonder why space behind a pedal is still a thing. If I were building a car, I would make it impossible to put anything under pedals, much like you cannot jam anything below a piano key.
        mlyle 3y ago
        Making a really tight seam is its own problem-- ever encounter an old piano with keys that stick?
      - ilyt 3y ago
        I just put them in passenger foot area, good enough.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not? I care for a basic and selfish reason beyond the "human missile" one: if I'm in a car crash with you and there's only one bed available in the ER, I don't want your lack of a seatbelt to be the source of a hard choice by the doctors operating on us.
  - tehwebguy 3y ago
    Plus nobody should have to scrape you off asphalt
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Don't worry that bed will be occupied by a opioid addict anyway.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  If you opt out of ER visits and are ok with being left to die if you’re in a car accident, sure, don’t wear a seatbelt. Also, you know who dies in much greater numbers than pedestrians due to vehicle crashes? The pedestrians walking by the bicyclists. So should pedestrians be forced to wear massive armors of steel when they walk around? Oh wait, that’s how so many awful American cities are designed. With absolutely no space for pedestrians who have to drive everywhere. In reality there’s only 1 source of danger on streets. Massive 2 ton vehicles that endanger their own occupants and everyone around them. Take away the 2 tons of metal usually carrying 1 person and everyone is safe.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    MX-5's for everyone! But yeah, without cars motorcycles and scooters suddenly become much safer way of transport
metalcrow 3y ago
Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets. If people hurt themselves it requires investments of health care workers and tax dollars. Now this isn't a really strong argument in the US, since we don't have socialized healthcare, but it's not nonexistent either. Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". Which is definitely true to an extend but the devil is in how far you're willing to stretch that.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets. The solution to this is to replace safety nets with transfer payments. Don't provide people with healthcare, provide them with money with which they can buy healthcare or insurance. This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't. And then if people want to buy less safe cars, insurance carriers will charge them higher premiums. > Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". This is nothing more than paternalism and has proved wrong time and again. It turns out that on average people understand their own situation better than far away generalist policymakers, even before you add in lobbyist influence. Which isn't to say that an individual will never make a mistake. But legislators make mistakes at scale. Whereas if you want to get individuals to change their behavior in a way that genuinely benefits them, all you have to do is tell them about it, not punish them if they hear you out and still want to do something else.
  - namdnay 3y ago
    > This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't. If the government is paying, why would it be cheaper 30 minutes away? One of the main features of single payer systems is that the single payer can impose a price list, and control any “ratcheting of prices” as you put it
nine_k 3y ago
Potentially hurting themselves only is okay: ride some extreme mountain bike, lift extreme weights, ski on risky slopes, consume strange substances, etc. But on a road people don't just hurt themselves by reckless conduct. A collision usually has a second participation vehicle, and sometimes many more if a pile-up occurs on a busy road. The other participants did not sign up for hurting themselves, and can be hurt more than the original reckless driver.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Right but smaller kei car have less mass and gonna induce less damage in crash. So you should be cheering for people to get them as if they crash into you, you're safer
bowsamic 3y ago
I'm sorry to be blunt, but do you really not understand that you are not the only one hurt when you crash a car? I often see this with regards to car crashes, people often say "the only one you hurt is yourself", and I feel like I must be on drugs or something, because I am pretty damn sure that this is not true

thebigjewbowski 3y ago

I was thinking about something similar the other day — why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not? You know what vehicle I see all the time that doesn’t require a license or minimum age, doesn’t have any safety features and can go 15-20 mph alongside traffic and often on a city sidewalk amongst pedestrians? A bicycle ;)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
habosa 3y ago
I’d really prefer not to kill anybody else I’m sharing the road with, all else equal. It would be quite traumatic for that persons family and for me too.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  True. Which is why I would like to make it the law that all motor vehicle occupants should wear helmets. This will mean saving billions of life years lost through traumatic brain injuries.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    What if the helmets were giant (unlike bike helmets, the rider doesn't have to carry the entire weight or air resistance). Then, instead of filling the helmets with hard styrofoam, we could fill them with something even softer, maybe a compressible gas. People could obviously store them in the vehicle. It might be annoying to wear them all the time, so we could mandate that cars detect when you are about to be in a crash and slam a helmet on your head. Although, come to think of it, it doesn't need to surround your whole head. What if we could make it just appear between your head and anything you were going to hit. Hey, we could even have those things hold the micro helmets. Since they are filled with air, we can use air pressure to deploy them fast, these flexible bags of air.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      You're kind of making their point for them. It's dumb to mandate helmets or any other specific technology because it removes the possibility for something better or for context-based decisionmaking. Suppose you ride your motorcycle into the desert and then lose your helmet into a canyon. Your phone is dead. Your choices are a thirty hour walk out of the desert which might cause you to die of dehydration, or riding your motorcycle without a helmet. Should you get a ticket for making the obvious choice?
      - Shaanie 3y ago
        You can make the exact same example, except someone without a driving license finds a car. I doubt you're opposed to mandating driver licenses, though.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're not making the point you think you are. All a driver license proves is that you took a basic class as a teenager and have been paying the government a fee since then. You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.
        defrost 3y ago
        > You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum. This doesn't contribute to the upkeep of roads in the same manner as a yearly tax on those that use them. So no, not the same benefit at all.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're thinking of car tax and fuel tax. But also, the value of roads scales poorly with any of these things. The ability to have a package delivered to your front door is valuable regardless of whether or not you even have a car, and the value of it depends on what's in it rather than how much the truck cost. The most sensible way to fund any kind of basic infrastructure is from general revenues.
neuronerdgirl 3y ago
You not wearing a seatbelt puts other people in the vehicle at risk because your body becomes a massive flying object in the cabin when you are hit that can injure or kill others in the vehicle with you.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  You the sort of person who will tie down a bag of dog food or bag of soup cans when you load them into a vehicle without a trunk?
  - Swizec 3y ago
    Yes. I always put seatbelts on big stuff in the rear seats
  - defrost 3y ago
    Absolutely. Also the person that ties down loads with multiple ropes | straps truckies hitches and stoppers. Not to mention stopping every few hundred miles to check tensions and reset as required. Loose loads are a pain in the arse and often dangerous. A soup can rolling loose and jamming up under a brake or accelerator pedal is something that really happens .. and it's no fun when it does.
    - nine_k 3y ago
      BTW I wonder why space behind a pedal is still a thing. If I were building a car, I would make it impossible to put anything under pedals, much like you cannot jam anything below a piano key.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Making a really tight seam is its own problem-- ever encounter an old piano with keys that stick?
    - ilyt 3y ago
      I just put them in passenger foot area, good enough.
woodruffw 3y ago
> why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not? I care for a basic and selfish reason beyond the "human missile" one: if I'm in a car crash with you and there's only one bed available in the ER, I don't want your lack of a seatbelt to be the source of a hard choice by the doctors operating on us.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  Plus nobody should have to scrape you off asphalt
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Don't worry that bed will be occupied by a opioid addict anyway.
rhaway84773 3y ago
If you opt out of ER visits and are ok with being left to die if you’re in a car accident, sure, don’t wear a seatbelt. Also, you know who dies in much greater numbers than pedestrians due to vehicle crashes? The pedestrians walking by the bicyclists. So should pedestrians be forced to wear massive armors of steel when they walk around? Oh wait, that’s how so many awful American cities are designed. With absolutely no space for pedestrians who have to drive everywhere. In reality there’s only 1 source of danger on streets. Massive 2 ton vehicles that endanger their own occupants and everyone around them. Take away the 2 tons of metal usually carrying 1 person and everyone is safe.
- ilyt 3y ago
  MX-5's for everyone! But yeah, without cars motorcycles and scooters suddenly become much safer way of transport

metalcrow 3y ago

Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets. If people hurt themselves it requires investments of health care workers and tax dollars. Now this isn't a really strong argument in the US, since we don't have socialized healthcare, but it's not nonexistent either. Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". Which is definitely true to an extend but the devil is in how far you're willing to stretch that.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets. The solution to this is to replace safety nets with transfer payments. Don't provide people with healthcare, provide them with money with which they can buy healthcare or insurance. This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't. And then if people want to buy less safe cars, insurance carriers will charge them higher premiums. > Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". This is nothing more than paternalism and has proved wrong time and again. It turns out that on average people understand their own situation better than far away generalist policymakers, even before you add in lobbyist influence. Which isn't to say that an individual will never make a mistake. But legislators make mistakes at scale. Whereas if you want to get individuals to change their behavior in a way that genuinely benefits them, all you have to do is tell them about it, not punish them if they hear you out and still want to do something else.
- namdnay 3y ago
  > This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't. If the government is paying, why would it be cheaper 30 minutes away? One of the main features of single payer systems is that the single payer can impose a price list, and control any “ratcheting of prices” as you put it

nine_k 3y ago

Potentially hurting themselves only is okay: ride some extreme mountain bike, lift extreme weights, ski on risky slopes, consume strange substances, etc. But on a road people don't just hurt themselves by reckless conduct. A collision usually has a second participation vehicle, and sometimes many more if a pile-up occurs on a busy road. The other participants did not sign up for hurting themselves, and can be hurt more than the original reckless driver.

ilyt 3y ago
Right but smaller kei car have less mass and gonna induce less damage in crash. So you should be cheering for people to get them as if they crash into you, you're safer

bowsamic 3y ago

I'm sorry to be blunt, but do you really not understand that you are not the only one hurt when you crash a car? I often see this with regards to car crashes, people often say "the only one you hurt is yourself", and I feel like I must be on drugs or something, because I am pretty damn sure that this is not true