10 ms·

Related: "Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked?" https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 Which argues t

Related: "Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked?" https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 Which argues that because larger cars are more likely to injure/kill someone in the event of a crash, buying a larger car makes you morally culpable for all such harms. Discussed more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35082315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35082315

J_Shelby_J 3y ago
Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. The real moral culpability is in the people that created and support the policies enabling the SUV Arma race.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I do not blame 60 year old laws. At some point before 60 years, voters and their representatives become responsible for not changing the law.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      Detroit appreciates not having the competition so the law stays. See also https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  The politicians making these decisions are also just playing a game. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    This has always been a cop out. When people CHOOSE to play the game because it enriches themselves at the expense of others, they are 100% at fault. Hate the player. You can hate the game too but if nobody played it there would be no problems.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      That's my point. If you take "Hate the player. Hate the game." as a morally valid defense when it comes to driving big cars, it also is a valid defense for politicians regulating the big cars. My point it is an invalid moral defense in both instances.
- asterix_pano 3y ago
  It is also fair to hate the player, as often they are making the decisions consciously. They are supporting the game, which would die if there was no demand. Same as the meat industry for example. It's too easy to always put the fault on some higher instance.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    No demand for vehicles? Not going to happen in the forseeable future. No demand for SUVs? That's possible, but hard. Most auto makers have killed most (if not all) of their cars, meaning if you have a family, you're in a sardine can, a muscle car, or an SUV. I own a Prius, because I don't have a kid. I loaned it out to family who had a kid, and it was a veritable clown car routine anywhere they wanted to go.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  Some people also actually need a large car. If you have a 6 person household, the only thing everyone will fit in is an SUV, a minivan, or a full size van.
  - cuu508 3y ago
    Yep, and some people actually need a truck bed or towing capacity, but most don't.
  - discodave 3y ago
    You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians. I.e. a minivan fits more people, but is smaller than some of the massive trucks I see driving around. I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). A modern SUV would likely be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots, and c) has a higher front bumper, so worse impact if you hit a pedestrian. The "I didn't have a choice" argument is almost always a logical fallacy.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - echelon 3y ago
      > You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. Not everybody wants to live in a city or can live in a city. > I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). Unlike pickup trucks, SUVs are fantastic for hauling both children and assorted cargo. Unlike minivans, they're great at handling a variety of driving conditions: gravel, dirt, ice/snow, inclines. They're also fun to drive and don't make it feel like the next sixteen years of your family's life is just dedicated to the brood.
      - m0ped 3y ago
        > One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. That's such and absurd suggestion I'm surprised you felt it worth writing, not to mention there are still plenty of pedestrians even in the suburbs.
- vel0city 3y ago
  People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. They prefer the more upright seating (higher h-point). They prefer the higher entry/exit point. They feel they need all the cargo space. Lots of people which I agree would probably be just as well served by a sedan or a hatchback just don't care for those car styles these days. Even if the sedan was a few grand less than the SUV (they often were when they were still sold), these people probably still go for the SUV if they could afford it. People didn't generally like them in the past because 1) modern SUVs are kind of a new-ish concept which only really started in the 90s where they absolutely exploded in popularity 2) those 90s body-on-frame SUVs drove like trucks while modern unibody crossovers drive more like cars and 3) it wasn't until about the 2000s that car makers started actually trying to make these vehicles appealing to average drivers as opposed to just work vehicles. These kinds of people are incredibly common from my experiences. Don't get me wrong, I do agree things like the chicken tax and CAFE requirements drove sedans and "light trucks" closer to the same price points, but generally speaking a ton of consumers want it this way.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. > A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. Classic. City-dwelling non-car owners projecting their understanding of the world onto the rest of the country. (Or in the case of Europeans, onto Americans.) American suburbia and rural life is car-centric, and that's not going to change. People are not going to want to move to densify or live in the city because that's what "everyone should want". They enjoy their private cabins, their tall all-wheel drive vehicles, not shared transit and subway. If you try to force these people to move to cities through taxation or a lack of support for their infrastructure, they'll vote out your political candidates. There are a lot of people from SF and NYC here. As is the case with /r/fuckcars and their advocating for bikes and "strong cities", these are not the views shared by the rest of the country. If they were, you'd see policies changing overnight.
    - 3y ago
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The game can't continue if there isn't a steady supply of new players. As a pedestrian, involuntary non-cyclist, and someone who prefers normal vehicles, your excuse is paper thin.
- isoprophlex 3y ago
  Don't worry, I can hate the players and the game at the same time!
- sjducb 3y ago
  Actually the safest cars are full size saloons. Trucks and SUVs rollover in accidents so your head changes from going straight ahead at 60mph to tumbling at 60mph breaking your neck.
- mycologos 3y ago
  > Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. This might be morally defensible for players making equal trades between protection for themselves and protection for others, but at some point this is clearly no longer the case. For example, most people would agree that killing 1000 people to save your own life is bad. If players aren't even bothering with this calculating the tradeoff between more protection for themselves and less protection for others -- and I think most people who protect themselves with large cars have not done this calculation -- then yes, it's fine to cast aspersions. According to this post from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1] (which I think is reliable?), going from a 2023 Prius (~88 square feet) to a 2023 Toyota Sequoia (~116 square feet) reduces car driver deaths from 47 per million vehicle years to 26. This seems, uh, fairly low down on the list of interventions your median SUV-driver could take to reduce their mortality, and it's made at a cost to other people, since "light trucks" (like SUVs, trucks, and vans) increase pedestrian fatalities by somewhere north of 50% [2, third page]. At some point, you're just being lazy, which you have a right to do, but I don't think it's particularly defensible. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight [2] https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf
pc86 3y ago
The question for me is, what is safer for my family? A huge proportion of the cars I see day to day are full-size SUVs like Tahoes, Yukons, and that QX80 monstrosity from Infiniti. There's a decent chance if I'm involved in an accident it will be with one of those cars. You can't seriously tell someone they have a moral obligation to buy a smaller vehicle when doing so puts their family and themselves at increased harm. If you want to ban vehicles above a certain weight or a certain displacement, fine let's talk about that. But until that happens I'm not going to intentionally make my kids less safe to reduce some wishy-washy definition of my "moral culpability" for accidents and deaths I've played no part in.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  > You can't seriously tell someone they have a moral obligation to buy a smaller vehicle when doing so puts their family and themselves at increased harm. You certainly can what the hell. Nowhere is it guaranteed that moral necessities align with comfort or safety.
  - pmg102 3y ago
    You have a moral obligation to your own family though. I think that is the point that OP is making.
  - dahfizz 3y ago
    Why is protecting strangers a moral necessity but protecting your own family is not?
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      I'm not even making that claim here, come on. If being in traffic is so dangerous to your family then your protective response should be to reduce their exposure to it as much as possible. People in this thread are jumping straight to their right to increase the overall danger of driving, and put more of that danger outside their personal sphere, before taking any other actions to reduce or mitigate it. They certainly have that right under the current arrangement. And I'm not saying all evaluations or decisions along these lines are immoral, I can approach this with understanding of real conditions and nuance. But along with that right comes being considered morally culpable or even cowardly for exercising it.
neogodless 3y ago
Also related / recently discussed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37028595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37028595 (slate.com) 102 points, 18 hours ago, 139 comments "If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose" https://slate.com/business/2023/01/electric-cars-hummer-ev-tax-fees-weight-joe-biden.html https://slate.com/business/2023/01/electric-cars-hummer-ev-t...
brokencode 3y ago
Driving a car makes you more likely to kill or injure somebody than walking or staying home. Is it immoral for anybody to drive a car at all? We all take on culpability for certain harms to others. It’s just a question of what as a society we are willing to accept. I don’t think this is an issue of society “overlooking” the morality of this specifically. It’s just that people have a lot of problems to worry about, and the crash safety of large vehicles isn’t high on the list.
- NextHendrix 3y ago
  Not immoral, just more culpable. Is it immoral not to kill oneself as being alive makes one more likely to kill someone?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jimmytidey 3y ago
  Yes, driving a car makes you morally culpable for the harms it does. If you ranked the harms you are likely to cause, driving a car would be very near the top of the list. You are exhibiting an aspect of the myopia the article is highlighting.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - brokencode 3y ago
    I guess what bothers me about this wording of how people are “overlooking moral culpability”, even if it’s accurate, is that it sounds very accusatory. Like “How could you buy an SUV? Don’t you care about the kids you’re bound to run over?” This particularly stings when a person thinks they are doing something normal like buying a car large enough to meet their family’s needs. Determining the moral culpability of actions and complaining about it is one thing. And it’s by far the easy part. The harder and more important part is to craft a message that doesn’t sound like an attack on a person’s morality.
mrinterweb 3y ago
I hate the mentality of "bigger car is safer for me and my family". It is safer because you will have more mass and in the event of a collision likely do more damage to the other vehicle. It is a mass/kinetic force arms race when people are using that as a reason for vehicle purchase. Similar logic can be applied to why many US citizens buy guns.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kozzz 3y ago
  This implies that it’s moral to make a conscious decision to lower the chances of survival for your family in case of crash?
superfrank 3y ago
I don't have a log in to read the full paper, but from your description and the preview, I can't help but think that this is just a weird extension of the trolley problem. You're taking an action that means you're more likely to harm someone else, but that same action also means the people in your car are less likely to be harmed.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  > just a weird extension of the trolley problem Its also subconscious bias of legislators on display, because they typically knock around in said big vehicles. Just look at presidential vehicles or ministerial vehicles, or royal vehicles. I'd love to see a big wig, knocking around in a Peugeot 106, or mini with a cavalcade. Even better if they can drive it themselves! Do you think car manufacturers would spend more time making smaller lightweight bullet proof crash proof cars, like you see in Formula 1? Something less likely to kill but bounce its occupants around when it crashes and do less harm, like zorbing. Nothing against cars per se, I love them, but it would be nice to see more Toyota Yaris GRX's or Polo GTI's which are pocket rockets but with better crash protection. Problem is people now haul around so much guff in their vehicles, they need these bigger vehicles. Blame it on the complicated consumer based form of capitalism we live in today. Consumption, consumption, consumption.
  - mec31 3y ago
    When the pope was in the US, he was driven around in a Fiat 500 (!). Granted, it was the four-door version :-)
    - darkclouds 3y ago
      I didnt know that, was his "pope mobile" vehicle not allowed in the US then? The photos of the car being dwarfed by the US security vehicles is funny, but a classic example of virtue signalling.
frumper 3y ago
I'd think injuring/killing someone because you hit them would make you morally culpable. The guy driving a semi and never getting in an accident should be able to sleep fine at night.
lost_tourist 3y ago
I doubt this will hold up in court tho

J_Shelby_J 3y ago

Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. The real moral culpability is in the people that created and support the policies enabling the SUV Arma race.

PaulHoule 3y ago
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I do not blame 60 year old laws. At some point before 60 years, voters and their representatives become responsible for not changing the law.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    Detroit appreciates not having the competition so the law stays. See also https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp
_Algernon_ 3y ago
The politicians making these decisions are also just playing a game. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  This has always been a cop out. When people CHOOSE to play the game because it enriches themselves at the expense of others, they are 100% at fault. Hate the player. You can hate the game too but if nobody played it there would be no problems.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    That's my point. If you take "Hate the player. Hate the game." as a morally valid defense when it comes to driving big cars, it also is a valid defense for politicians regulating the big cars. My point it is an invalid moral defense in both instances.
asterix_pano 3y ago
It is also fair to hate the player, as often they are making the decisions consciously. They are supporting the game, which would die if there was no demand. Same as the meat industry for example. It's too easy to always put the fault on some higher instance.
- falcolas 3y ago
  No demand for vehicles? Not going to happen in the forseeable future. No demand for SUVs? That's possible, but hard. Most auto makers have killed most (if not all) of their cars, meaning if you have a family, you're in a sardine can, a muscle car, or an SUV. I own a Prius, because I don't have a kid. I loaned it out to family who had a kid, and it was a veritable clown car routine anywhere they wanted to go.
lockhouse 3y ago
Some people also actually need a large car. If you have a 6 person household, the only thing everyone will fit in is an SUV, a minivan, or a full size van.
- cuu508 3y ago
  Yep, and some people actually need a truck bed or towing capacity, but most don't.
- discodave 3y ago
  You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians. I.e. a minivan fits more people, but is smaller than some of the massive trucks I see driving around. I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). A modern SUV would likely be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots, and c) has a higher front bumper, so worse impact if you hit a pedestrian. The "I didn't have a choice" argument is almost always a logical fallacy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - echelon 3y ago
    > You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. Not everybody wants to live in a city or can live in a city. > I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). Unlike pickup trucks, SUVs are fantastic for hauling both children and assorted cargo. Unlike minivans, they're great at handling a variety of driving conditions: gravel, dirt, ice/snow, inclines. They're also fun to drive and don't make it feel like the next sixteen years of your family's life is just dedicated to the brood.
    - m0ped 3y ago
      > One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. That's such and absurd suggestion I'm surprised you felt it worth writing, not to mention there are still plenty of pedestrians even in the suburbs.
vel0city 3y ago
People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. They prefer the more upright seating (higher h-point). They prefer the higher entry/exit point. They feel they need all the cargo space. Lots of people which I agree would probably be just as well served by a sedan or a hatchback just don't care for those car styles these days. Even if the sedan was a few grand less than the SUV (they often were when they were still sold), these people probably still go for the SUV if they could afford it. People didn't generally like them in the past because 1) modern SUVs are kind of a new-ish concept which only really started in the 90s where they absolutely exploded in popularity 2) those 90s body-on-frame SUVs drove like trucks while modern unibody crossovers drive more like cars and 3) it wasn't until about the 2000s that car makers started actually trying to make these vehicles appealing to average drivers as opposed to just work vehicles. These kinds of people are incredibly common from my experiences. Don't get me wrong, I do agree things like the chicken tax and CAFE requirements drove sedans and "light trucks" closer to the same price points, but generally speaking a ton of consumers want it this way.
- echelon 3y ago
  > People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. > A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. Classic. City-dwelling non-car owners projecting their understanding of the world onto the rest of the country. (Or in the case of Europeans, onto Americans.) American suburbia and rural life is car-centric, and that's not going to change. People are not going to want to move to densify or live in the city because that's what "everyone should want". They enjoy their private cabins, their tall all-wheel drive vehicles, not shared transit and subway. If you try to force these people to move to cities through taxation or a lack of support for their infrastructure, they'll vote out your political candidates. There are a lot of people from SF and NYC here. As is the case with /r/fuckcars and their advocating for bikes and "strong cities", these are not the views shared by the rest of the country. If they were, you'd see policies changing overnight.
  - 3y ago
anigbrowl 3y ago
The game can't continue if there isn't a steady supply of new players. As a pedestrian, involuntary non-cyclist, and someone who prefers normal vehicles, your excuse is paper thin.
isoprophlex 3y ago
Don't worry, I can hate the players and the game at the same time!
sjducb 3y ago
Actually the safest cars are full size saloons. Trucks and SUVs rollover in accidents so your head changes from going straight ahead at 60mph to tumbling at 60mph breaking your neck.
mycologos 3y ago
> Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. This might be morally defensible for players making equal trades between protection for themselves and protection for others, but at some point this is clearly no longer the case. For example, most people would agree that killing 1000 people to save your own life is bad. If players aren't even bothering with this calculating the tradeoff between more protection for themselves and less protection for others -- and I think most people who protect themselves with large cars have not done this calculation -- then yes, it's fine to cast aspersions. According to this post from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1] (which I think is reliable?), going from a 2023 Prius (~88 square feet) to a 2023 Toyota Sequoia (~116 square feet) reduces car driver deaths from 47 per million vehicle years to 26. This seems, uh, fairly low down on the list of interventions your median SUV-driver could take to reduce their mortality, and it's made at a cost to other people, since "light trucks" (like SUVs, trucks, and vans) increase pedestrian fatalities by somewhere north of 50% [2, third page]. At some point, you're just being lazy, which you have a right to do, but I don't think it's particularly defensible. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight [2] https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf

pc86 3y ago

The question for me is, what is safer for my family? A huge proportion of the cars I see day to day are full-size SUVs like Tahoes, Yukons, and that QX80 monstrosity from Infiniti. There's a decent chance if I'm involved in an accident it will be with one of those cars. You can't seriously tell someone they have a moral obligation to buy a smaller vehicle when doing so puts their family and themselves at increased harm. If you want to ban vehicles above a certain weight or a certain displacement, fine let's talk about that. But until that happens I'm not going to intentionally make my kids less safe to reduce some wishy-washy definition of my "moral culpability" for accidents and deaths I've played no part in.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
> You can't seriously tell someone they have a moral obligation to buy a smaller vehicle when doing so puts their family and themselves at increased harm. You certainly can what the hell. Nowhere is it guaranteed that moral necessities align with comfort or safety.
- pmg102 3y ago
  You have a moral obligation to your own family though. I think that is the point that OP is making.
- dahfizz 3y ago
  Why is protecting strangers a moral necessity but protecting your own family is not?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I'm not even making that claim here, come on. If being in traffic is so dangerous to your family then your protective response should be to reduce their exposure to it as much as possible. People in this thread are jumping straight to their right to increase the overall danger of driving, and put more of that danger outside their personal sphere, before taking any other actions to reduce or mitigate it. They certainly have that right under the current arrangement. And I'm not saying all evaluations or decisions along these lines are immoral, I can approach this with understanding of real conditions and nuance. But along with that right comes being considered morally culpable or even cowardly for exercising it.

neogodless 3y ago

Also related / recently discussed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37028595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37028595 (slate.com) 102 points, 18 hours ago, 139 comments "If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose" https://slate.com/business/2023/01/electric-cars-hummer-ev-tax-fees-weight-joe-biden.html https://slate.com/business/2023/01/electric-cars-hummer-ev-t...

brokencode 3y ago

Driving a car makes you more likely to kill or injure somebody than walking or staying home. Is it immoral for anybody to drive a car at all? We all take on culpability for certain harms to others. It’s just a question of what as a society we are willing to accept. I don’t think this is an issue of society “overlooking” the morality of this specifically. It’s just that people have a lot of problems to worry about, and the crash safety of large vehicles isn’t high on the list.

NextHendrix 3y ago
Not immoral, just more culpable. Is it immoral not to kill oneself as being alive makes one more likely to kill someone?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jimmytidey 3y ago
Yes, driving a car makes you morally culpable for the harms it does. If you ranked the harms you are likely to cause, driving a car would be very near the top of the list. You are exhibiting an aspect of the myopia the article is highlighting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- brokencode 3y ago
  I guess what bothers me about this wording of how people are “overlooking moral culpability”, even if it’s accurate, is that it sounds very accusatory. Like “How could you buy an SUV? Don’t you care about the kids you’re bound to run over?” This particularly stings when a person thinks they are doing something normal like buying a car large enough to meet their family’s needs. Determining the moral culpability of actions and complaining about it is one thing. And it’s by far the easy part. The harder and more important part is to craft a message that doesn’t sound like an attack on a person’s morality.

mrinterweb 3y ago

I hate the mentality of "bigger car is safer for me and my family". It is safer because you will have more mass and in the event of a collision likely do more damage to the other vehicle. It is a mass/kinetic force arms race when people are using that as a reason for vehicle purchase. Similar logic can be applied to why many US citizens buy guns.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kozzz 3y ago
This implies that it’s moral to make a conscious decision to lower the chances of survival for your family in case of crash?

superfrank 3y ago

I don't have a log in to read the full paper, but from your description and the preview, I can't help but think that this is just a weird extension of the trolley problem. You're taking an action that means you're more likely to harm someone else, but that same action also means the people in your car are less likely to be harmed.

darkclouds 3y ago
> just a weird extension of the trolley problem Its also subconscious bias of legislators on display, because they typically knock around in said big vehicles. Just look at presidential vehicles or ministerial vehicles, or royal vehicles. I'd love to see a big wig, knocking around in a Peugeot 106, or mini with a cavalcade. Even better if they can drive it themselves! Do you think car manufacturers would spend more time making smaller lightweight bullet proof crash proof cars, like you see in Formula 1? Something less likely to kill but bounce its occupants around when it crashes and do less harm, like zorbing. Nothing against cars per se, I love them, but it would be nice to see more Toyota Yaris GRX's or Polo GTI's which are pocket rockets but with better crash protection. Problem is people now haul around so much guff in their vehicles, they need these bigger vehicles. Blame it on the complicated consumer based form of capitalism we live in today. Consumption, consumption, consumption.
- mec31 3y ago
  When the pope was in the US, he was driven around in a Fiat 500 (!). Granted, it was the four-door version :-)
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    I didnt know that, was his "pope mobile" vehicle not allowed in the US then? The photos of the car being dwarfed by the US security vehicles is funny, but a classic example of virtue signalling.

frumper 3y ago

I'd think injuring/killing someone because you hit them would make you morally culpable. The guy driving a semi and never getting in an accident should be able to sleep fine at night.

lost_tourist 3y ago

I doubt this will hold up in court tho