3 ms·

As the article mentions, the driver will have to deal with the knowledge that they killed an entire family by accident, which can’t be easy. Of course, it is no

by zamfi 2y ago

As the article mentions, the driver will have to deal with the knowledge that they killed an entire family by accident, which can’t be easy. Of course, it is nothing compared to what the killed family’s fiends and loved ones feel, but “NO consequences” isn’t exactly fair. Which is also part of the point of the article: the problem is that it’s missing the forest for the trees to treat just the driver as responsible — one could argue the driver was also failed by the entire system described here, the system that privileges vehicles and their occupants over pedestrians, that treats death as an unavoidable, and therefore acceptable, consequence of vehicle use, which itself is treated as an unalienable right. Where are the: - fitness-to-drive tests every few years? - geofenced enforced speed limits? - protected sidewalks with higher boundaries? - physical smartphone restrictions on use while driving? (Paired with your car, moving > 5 mph, single occupancy? Car mode.) - pedestrian-focused safety mechanisms? (E.g., external airbags?) - traffic calming measures on major roadways shared with pedestrians? - standards around signaling at crosswalks on major roadways? - heavily subsidized transit that runs frequently enough that it’s preferable to driving? Every regulation has a cost, of course, and many of these are horribly privacy-violating if naively implemented. But let’s be 100% clear what we are privileging when we make these decisions!

lazyasciiart 2y ago
It would be less frustrating if our society was willing to take this systemic view of low level crime as well. But there are people in jail and even prison for shoplifting, or stealing a car, or such unforgivable violence as a punch that left someone bruised. Because yes, we demand a system that creates these kinds of crime, but no, people aren’t willing to think that way about anything except killing people with your car.
- zamfi 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you -- I'd only add that I think a major factor here is premeditation. The law already treats harms from negligence or even from "heat of the moment" actions differently than harms from premeditated action. Few of the vehicular deaths here are the result of a person making a particular decision to kill someone -- even if that is a statistically likelier outcome of distracted driving. That stands in contrast with shoplifting and vehicle theft, which are almost always planned actions, or at least actions undertaken with the knowledge that they are crimes. Whether this is the right line to draw or not is, of course, a major question.
yowzadave 2y ago
> the driver will have to deal with the knowledge that they killed an entire family by accident Do you think the term "accident" accurately describes what happened? In that particular case, the driver of an SUV was speeding on the wrong side of the road, ran onto the sidewalk, and struck the family and the neighboring library.
- zamfi 2y ago
  In the sense that the outcome was not maliciously intentional, yes. Doesn’t mean they bear no responsibility, of course, or that their egregious actions didn’t cause it—just means they didn’t set out to do it.
deadbabe 2y ago
Relying on the driver to have some kind of moral anguish the rest of his life as punishment is shaky at best. The driver might not even give a fuck. He might rationalize he wasn’t a fault. What about the anguish it would cause a parent to know their child and their whole family were killed off and the driver gets to pretty much live his life as normal? Would you just accept that?
- zamfi 2y ago
  I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The family should absolutely sue the driver for everything he's got, an avenue available beyond the paltry criminal penalties applied here. Of course, that will not make the family whole. Additional punishment for the driver will also not make the family whole. The question is: what are our priorities as a society? This article is arguing that our priorities are terrible: as a society we create the conditions that allow and perpetuate this kind of tragedy on a daily basis, and then point fingers at the individuals when the tragedies inevitably happen. We can't do anything to make this family whole. Advocating for greater punishment will do approximately nothing to make the next family whole. This article is arguing: all we can do to make the next family whole is to stop treating traffic fatalities as unavoidable, and prevent the next tragedy by treating cars as the dangerous objects they really are, by supporting alternative modes of transportation.
  - deadbabe 2y ago
    So because people can’t be made whole, we shouldn’t bother with greater punishments. Keep that same energy when a relative finds the driver and murders him in a rage.
    - zamfi 2y ago
      No? Sounds like maybe you didn't actually read my post. In fact, I described the penalties here as "paltry" and it is totally reasonable to expect greater punishment in this case. I am also saying that this will do nothing for the next family, but you seem to have missed that point.
seoulmetro 2y ago
Oh, another hilariously inept take on the situation. Now I know why you're attacking me in the other comments. Because you have an agenda. Vehicular deaths are unavoidable in a vehicular society. This isn't rocket science, you're free to keep refuting the inevitable though. I wonder if you'd change your tune if we were talking about drug use, or obesity. "Just stop them eating food if they're fat and hungry." "Just eliminate unhealthy food that tastes good and is natural." "Meat is a sin"
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by zamfi 2y ago

lazyasciiart 2y ago

It would be less frustrating if our society was willing to take this systemic view of low level crime as well. But there are people in jail and even prison for shoplifting, or stealing a car, or such unforgivable violence as a punch that left someone bruised. Because yes, we demand a system that creates these kinds of crime, but no, people aren’t willing to think that way about anything except killing people with your car.

zamfi 2y ago
I don't disagree with you -- I'd only add that I think a major factor here is premeditation. The law already treats harms from negligence or even from "heat of the moment" actions differently than harms from premeditated action. Few of the vehicular deaths here are the result of a person making a particular decision to kill someone -- even if that is a statistically likelier outcome of distracted driving. That stands in contrast with shoplifting and vehicle theft, which are almost always planned actions, or at least actions undertaken with the knowledge that they are crimes. Whether this is the right line to draw or not is, of course, a major question.

yowzadave 2y ago

> the driver will have to deal with the knowledge that they killed an entire family by accident Do you think the term "accident" accurately describes what happened? In that particular case, the driver of an SUV was speeding on the wrong side of the road, ran onto the sidewalk, and struck the family and the neighboring library.

zamfi 2y ago
In the sense that the outcome was not maliciously intentional, yes. Doesn’t mean they bear no responsibility, of course, or that their egregious actions didn’t cause it—just means they didn’t set out to do it.

deadbabe 2y ago

Relying on the driver to have some kind of moral anguish the rest of his life as punishment is shaky at best. The driver might not even give a fuck. He might rationalize he wasn’t a fault. What about the anguish it would cause a parent to know their child and their whole family were killed off and the driver gets to pretty much live his life as normal? Would you just accept that?

zamfi 2y ago
I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The family should absolutely sue the driver for everything he's got, an avenue available beyond the paltry criminal penalties applied here. Of course, that will not make the family whole. Additional punishment for the driver will also not make the family whole. The question is: what are our priorities as a society? This article is arguing that our priorities are terrible: as a society we create the conditions that allow and perpetuate this kind of tragedy on a daily basis, and then point fingers at the individuals when the tragedies inevitably happen. We can't do anything to make this family whole. Advocating for greater punishment will do approximately nothing to make the next family whole. This article is arguing: all we can do to make the next family whole is to stop treating traffic fatalities as unavoidable, and prevent the next tragedy by treating cars as the dangerous objects they really are, by supporting alternative modes of transportation.
- deadbabe 2y ago
  So because people can’t be made whole, we shouldn’t bother with greater punishments. Keep that same energy when a relative finds the driver and murders him in a rage.
  - zamfi 2y ago
    No? Sounds like maybe you didn't actually read my post. In fact, I described the penalties here as "paltry" and it is totally reasonable to expect greater punishment in this case. I am also saying that this will do nothing for the next family, but you seem to have missed that point.

seoulmetro 2y ago

Oh, another hilariously inept take on the situation. Now I know why you're attacking me in the other comments. Because you have an agenda. Vehicular deaths are unavoidable in a vehicular society. This isn't rocket science, you're free to keep refuting the inevitable though. I wonder if you'd change your tune if we were talking about drug use, or obesity. "Just stop them eating food if they're fat and hungry." "Just eliminate unhealthy food that tastes good and is natural." "Meat is a sin"

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]