4 ms·

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.
      - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
        Those things aren't really equivalent though. The percentage of pedestrian deaths in a collision at given speeds is starting from a 100% rate of incidence. So whilst it's predictable, it's not necessarily probable. How many pedestrians is a driver actually likely to hit driving at 40mph? Generally speaking, zero. How many people is a lunatic swinging golf club likely to hit in a crowded club, quite a lot more than zero. Nevertheless, I appreciate your point. I was thinking only of speeding on highways. Speeding is an issue and shouldn't be minimised.
- browningstreet 2y ago
  In the last few days I've taken a few Waymo's around SF and driven back and forth on I-80. I-80 is definitely a hotbed of aggressively dangerous driving and the violent use of vehicles against others that aren't driving how you want them to (and I'm a fast driver). Have those two experiences very much back to back, I joked about how once we get robo-taxis we'll never go back. Human drivers are dangerous enough of the time -- it's not like I've ever driven on I-80 and NOT seen crazy, pants- staining driving. It's every mile or two of the whole stretch. (Waymo feels so much more mature and pleasant than the last FSD Beta I tested.. Elon should be embarassed.)
  - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
    I'd argue that the main issue on US highways is a lack of discipline. US drivers get away with murder in terms of undertaking, tailgating, camping in fast lanes under the speed limit, not to mention driving vehicles that are in such states of disrepair that it's a miracle the drivers get anywhere. I'm way more relaxed cruising at 160km/h in Europe than literally any stretch of the I-5.
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      > I'd argue that the main issue on US highways is a lack of discipline. That is a fair point, but unfortunately there is no good solution to that... otherwise we wouldn't need laws and their enforcement in the first place. It's all about risk... if people are speeding too often and too fast that it's becoming dangerous (which I 1000% agree with), then I think more strict enforcement is warranted. Conversely, we don't outlaw going outside just because someone could run you over... the risk is not high enough. But I think the risk of injury or death from speeding is very high.
      - buildbot 2y ago
        The risk of speeding vs. the risk of staring at your phone. Try doing them for equal times and see what results in a crash…
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 2y ago
Are you implying that solving that problem would also solve speeding? I don't really see the connection.

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.
    - chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
      Those things aren't really equivalent though. The percentage of pedestrian deaths in a collision at given speeds is starting from a 100% rate of incidence. So whilst it's predictable, it's not necessarily probable. How many pedestrians is a driver actually likely to hit driving at 40mph? Generally speaking, zero. How many people is a lunatic swinging golf club likely to hit in a crowded club, quite a lot more than zero. Nevertheless, I appreciate your point. I was thinking only of speeding on highways. Speeding is an issue and shouldn't be minimised.
browningstreet 2y ago
In the last few days I've taken a few Waymo's around SF and driven back and forth on I-80. I-80 is definitely a hotbed of aggressively dangerous driving and the violent use of vehicles against others that aren't driving how you want them to (and I'm a fast driver). Have those two experiences very much back to back, I joked about how once we get robo-taxis we'll never go back. Human drivers are dangerous enough of the time -- it's not like I've ever driven on I-80 and NOT seen crazy, pants- staining driving. It's every mile or two of the whole stretch. (Waymo feels so much more mature and pleasant than the last FSD Beta I tested.. Elon should be embarassed.)
- chrstphrknwtn 2y ago
  I'd argue that the main issue on US highways is a lack of discipline. US drivers get away with murder in terms of undertaking, tailgating, camping in fast lanes under the speed limit, not to mention driving vehicles that are in such states of disrepair that it's a miracle the drivers get anywhere. I'm way more relaxed cruising at 160km/h in Europe than literally any stretch of the I-5.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    > I'd argue that the main issue on US highways is a lack of discipline. That is a fair point, but unfortunately there is no good solution to that... otherwise we wouldn't need laws and their enforcement in the first place. It's all about risk... if people are speeding too often and too fast that it's becoming dangerous (which I 1000% agree with), then I think more strict enforcement is warranted. Conversely, we don't outlaw going outside just because someone could run you over... the risk is not high enough. But I think the risk of injury or death from speeding is very high.
    - buildbot 2y ago
      The risk of speeding vs. the risk of staring at your phone. Try doing them for equal times and see what results in a crash…

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 2y ago

Are you implying that solving that problem would also solve speeding? I don't really see the connection.