3 ms·
I get really mad about stuff like this, because it's so easy for bureaucrats to unilaterally decide that utilitarianism should trump deontology when that isn't
by torstenvl 3y ago
I get really mad about stuff like this, because it's so easy for bureaucrats to unilaterally decide that utilitarianism should trump deontology when that isn't how human morality works at all.
Things like this kill people and agency officials justify it to themselves with the comforting thought that it's okay because it's fewer people than would have died otherwise, never stopping to appreciate the difference between throwing the switch between trolley tracks and pushing a fat kid in front of the trolley.
- mattlondon 3y agoHow would preventing cars from going over 100mph kill people?
- injeolmi_love 3y agoEmergency situations. For instance someone has a stroke, no ambulance, and driving to hospital. Happens frequently in rural areas.
- jemmyw 3y agoYou still shouldn't be driving that fast. In your panic you're even more likely to make a mistake and end up killing yourself, your passenger and, potentially, another car full of people. Emergency vehicles are involved in proportionally more accidents and they have trained drivers.
- mattlondon 3y agoSo even if you had to drive 100 miles to the hospital, going at 100mph (the proposed limit) you are going to take an hour. Going at say 120mph you are going to get there just 10 minutes faster (50 minutes). And this all assumes that there are no corners, no traffic lights, no other traffic etc - that you can just point your car directly at the hospital and hit 120mph and sit there for 50 minutes straight with no interruptions. If you plan to average 120mph for 50 minutes of driving (to allow for corners, traffic, etc) then you are approaching Formula 1 car levels of speed (they average 138mph across a race), but in a non-F1 car, on a non-F1 surface/track, and a non-F1 skilled driver. If you need to go less than 100 miles, say 10 or 20 miles then the time saving of going over 100 shrinks by orders of magnitude so the benefits of going over 100 shrink too. This does not sound like a reasonable argument to me.
- nullindividual 3y agoRe-read the article in full. 100 Mph isn't the "proposal". The proposal is to limit at or perhaps a few mph above the posted speed limit.
- mattlondon 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 3y agoYour friend is bleeding out in the passenger seat and you're taking him to the ER.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- defrost 3y agoContrived and not a great idea in the slightest in an urban setting when you're not visibly an emergancy vehicles and not running lights and sirens. Also stupid in the sense that not even EMT vehicles do this - they run at speeds that keep the patient alive (ie. stable vehicle, no rocking and rolling) and .. FIRST!! You stop the bleeding. Clamp, strap, tourniquet, whatever. Have you not taken a basic first aid course? Your friend is dead with you at the wheel.
- WalterBright 3y agoI do know first aid, but some situations are beyond my abilities. Not every road is unsafe to drive at high speed.