13 ms·

If we cared about traffic violence, speeding would be a solved problem. But we don't.

by jsat 2y ago

colonelspace 2y ago
"Traffic violence" implies deliberate acts intended to cause harm, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > "Traffic violence" implies deliberate acts intended to cause harm Not really. The violence of traffic crashes increases as the speed increases.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > violence of traffic crashes Within an individual human context, violence usually requires intent.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > Within an individual human context, violence usually requires intent. There is a sense of the word that implies intent, but that is only one of the senses and another sense that means "forceful or strong" is often used in describing traits of individual humans and their behavior emotions. A violent nod is not a nod intended to cause harm. The violence of someone's emotions refers to their strength, not their intent.
  - colonelspace 2y ago
    Without devolving into a discussion of semantics too much, violence really does imply some intent to harm another person, or people. If I drive at ~200km/h on my way from Berlin to Munich, am I "being violent"?
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > violence really does imply some intent to harm another person, or people. That is one of the meanings/senses of the word, but not the only one. It is perfectly reasonable to say that driving ~200km/h is a violent speed without saying the the driver is being violent because those are two different senses of the word.
- mdanger007 2y ago
  You've never seen aggressively dangerous driving? Must be nice living there.
  - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
    Sure, but I'm not sure "aggressively dangerous driving" is broadly equivalent to violence, or should be described as such. At any rate, I'm not attempting to say traffic fatalities and injuries aren't a problem.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      If I go in a crowded night club and start swinging a golf club around, but not at any specific individual, is the end result violence? Was my action violent? To me it's an extremely clear yes. The only reason I can see why we view this differently is just because we've all agreed this doesn't apply to choices made while driving. But I can't see why that would be the case.
      - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
        On your first point, that sounds like violence to me, sure. It's almost guaranteed to cause harm, and the club swinger probably knows that. On your second point, the likelihood that speeding will cause actual harm to another person is vastly lower, and certainly not an outcome expected or intended by drivers generally speaking. Seems silly to call that "violence" when we can just call it irresponsible, negligent, etc.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        The risk of pedestrian death in a collision goes from about 10% at 25mph to over 50% at 40mph, and this level of speeding is absolutely normal in the american city I live in. A pedestrian dying because of a driver's decision to speed in this way is predictable, absolutely expected. Shit I doubt my odds with a golf club at a party are anywhere near 50%. So why is one violence and the other not? I think only because we have decided it is not. But again that decision is exactly what I'm challenging. Calling it silly is not a convincing argument to me.
- superkuh 2y ago
  Of the subset of unintentional crashes it's hard to say how many of them are from irresponsible driving behavior. But I do know that the vast majority of people driving around me on highways/freeways/etc do not obey the speed limit and instead just sort of travel in high speed flocks. Like they don't care that they're operating extremely dangerous vehicles doing an extremely dangerous thing. This is not intent to cause harm but more like playing catch with a loaded firearm.
  - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
    I agree say this is generally true in the United States, where driving discipline on highways is basically non-existent. Although I would stop short of calling it "extremely dangerous".
    - tomgp 2y ago
      How many people would need to die each year for it to be considered extremely dangerous? Literal wars have been started over fewer deaths than the US road network racks up in a year. OK I’m being facetious but the extent to which we’ve normalised 40,000+ deaths a year really is remarkable, can you imagine the reaction if smart phones killed that many?
      - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
        Sure, it's problem. But speeding-related fatalities accounted for 30% of traffic fatalities in the US for 2022. Which implies there are plenty of other issues, such that I think saying "speeding is violence" doesn't really do anything to address the problem.
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      Roadway injuries and deaths are both leading causes for many demographics and the US has a death rate three times Canada's, per capita. More than 4x the UK's. I'd call that extremely dangerous...
      - 2y ago
- jsat 2y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
gruez 2y ago
>If we cared about traffic violence The trend of "slapping a 'violence' label after anything vaguely harmful but not actually violent" is so tiresome.
- jsat 2y ago
  Look up the most common causes of death in America and come back

If we cared about traffic violence, speeding would be a solved problem. But we don't.

by jsat 2y ago

If we cared about traffic violence, speeding would be a solved problem. But we don't.

colonelspace 2y ago

"Traffic violence" implies deliberate acts intended to cause harm, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.

shkkmo 2y ago
> "Traffic violence" implies deliberate acts intended to cause harm Not really. The violence of traffic crashes increases as the speed increases.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > violence of traffic crashes Within an individual human context, violence usually requires intent.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > Within an individual human context, violence usually requires intent. There is a sense of the word that implies intent, but that is only one of the senses and another sense that means "forceful or strong" is often used in describing traits of individual humans and their behavior emotions. A violent nod is not a nod intended to cause harm. The violence of someone's emotions refers to their strength, not their intent.
- colonelspace 2y ago
  Without devolving into a discussion of semantics too much, violence really does imply some intent to harm another person, or people. If I drive at ~200km/h on my way from Berlin to Munich, am I "being violent"?
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > violence really does imply some intent to harm another person, or people. That is one of the meanings/senses of the word, but not the only one. It is perfectly reasonable to say that driving ~200km/h is a violent speed without saying the the driver is being violent because those are two different senses of the word.
mdanger007 2y ago
You've never seen aggressively dangerous driving? Must be nice living there.
- chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
  Sure, but I'm not sure "aggressively dangerous driving" is broadly equivalent to violence, or should be described as such. At any rate, I'm not attempting to say traffic fatalities and injuries aren't a problem.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    If I go in a crowded night club and start swinging a golf club around, but not at any specific individual, is the end result violence? Was my action violent? To me it's an extremely clear yes. The only reason I can see why we view this differently is just because we've all agreed this doesn't apply to choices made while driving. But I can't see why that would be the case.
    - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
      On your first point, that sounds like violence to me, sure. It's almost guaranteed to cause harm, and the club swinger probably knows that. On your second point, the likelihood that speeding will cause actual harm to another person is vastly lower, and certainly not an outcome expected or intended by drivers generally speaking. Seems silly to call that "violence" when we can just call it irresponsible, negligent, etc.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        The risk of pedestrian death in a collision goes from about 10% at 25mph to over 50% at 40mph, and this level of speeding is absolutely normal in the american city I live in. A pedestrian dying because of a driver's decision to speed in this way is predictable, absolutely expected. Shit I doubt my odds with a golf club at a party are anywhere near 50%. So why is one violence and the other not? I think only because we have decided it is not. But again that decision is exactly what I'm challenging. Calling it silly is not a convincing argument to me.
superkuh 2y ago
Of the subset of unintentional crashes it's hard to say how many of them are from irresponsible driving behavior. But I do know that the vast majority of people driving around me on highways/freeways/etc do not obey the speed limit and instead just sort of travel in high speed flocks. Like they don't care that they're operating extremely dangerous vehicles doing an extremely dangerous thing. This is not intent to cause harm but more like playing catch with a loaded firearm.
- chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
  I agree say this is generally true in the United States, where driving discipline on highways is basically non-existent. Although I would stop short of calling it "extremely dangerous".
  - tomgp 2y ago
    How many people would need to die each year for it to be considered extremely dangerous? Literal wars have been started over fewer deaths than the US road network racks up in a year. OK I’m being facetious but the extent to which we’ve normalised 40,000+ deaths a year really is remarkable, can you imagine the reaction if smart phones killed that many?
    - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
      Sure, it's problem. But speeding-related fatalities accounted for 30% of traffic fatalities in the US for 2022. Which implies there are plenty of other issues, such that I think saying "speeding is violence" doesn't really do anything to address the problem.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    Roadway injuries and deaths are both leading causes for many demographics and the US has a death rate three times Canada's, per capita. More than 4x the UK's. I'd call that extremely dangerous...
    - 2y ago
jsat 2y ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

gruez 2y ago

>If we cared about traffic violence The trend of "slapping a 'violence' label after anything vaguely harmful but not actually violent" is so tiresome.

jsat 2y ago
Look up the most common causes of death in America and come back