321–330 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not wearing a seatbelt is an individual choice, and should not be a crime. P.S. Growing up, my dad had the dealer install seatbelts in the family wagon before he picked it up. We never moved an inch unless everyone was buckled up. Nobody else, and I mean nobody else, had seatbelts in their car at the time. P.P.S. Seatbelts also saved my life.
As long as you're held accountable for your body flinging into others and injuring them, sure.
Some people can't even imagine walking anymore and are blind to even how much road furniture and infrastructure they litter everywhere
Some of the biggest structures we have are roads created in the last 100 years
Absolutely crazy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t San Fransisco do all of those? They spend a huge amount on it anyway. And being one the dirtiest cities possible.
I'm really tired of this "SF is the dirties city" trope. Yes, there are areas that are incredibly dirty, but those areas are something like 5% of the city, and most of those areas are concentrated in a few specific neighborhoods. Most of the city is fairly clean (but to be sure, it's no Singapore) and reasonably well-maintained. I've been in areas of Manhattan that would rival SF's dirtiest areas, but I wouldn't clai…
NYC is a filthy city. I think most people that live here and love it would agree.
I think there's another reason too we "ignore" car crashes: loose coupling with politics. Say a DUI driver kills a random family of 5. Is that going to make national headlines? Probably not. Very little to be gained politically. It doesn't really enrage us because we love and celebrate alcohol too much to be capable of villainizing it like guns. So as a result, it doesn't spread very far on social media. Now say a ra…
Well, comparing guns and cars is just absurd. Many kinds of restrictions like age limits, requiring a driver license, requiring liability insurance, seat belt restrictions, speed limits, NHTA safety regulations that car manufacturers have to meet, speed traps by traffic police and so on... none of that exists for guns.
* Age limits: There is a similar age limit to buy a gun as there is to drive a car
* Driver's license: Pretty much anyone with a pulse over the age of 16 can get a driver's license and it's nearly impossible to revoke permanently
* Insurance: The legally required insurance limits in some states is so low that it's effectively useless
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You can't change people that much." The point of licensing is to restrict the privilege to those who can responsibly and competently preform the task. If they can't conform to that, then they shouldn't be driving. Tougher licensing and enforcement would drastically reduce fatalities. We already see this in many European nations with stricter enforcement and licensing.
The thing is in the US driving is essential to having any sort of life for the most part leaving tiny enclaves like NYC aside. And freedom is an important part of US ethos. Autonomous cars as long as they are better than humans would be accepted by a range of people especially by elderly etc because what they want is to get from point A to point B, not necessarily to drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are, but cars will function without them being used.
At least in Europe, there is a very annoying beep if you don't wear the seatbelt. You can still drive, and there are ways to disable it, but most people just wear their seatbelt. I don't think it is mandatory, but it counts in the EuroNCAP score, and since it is one of the easiest safety feature to implement, they all have it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try visiting Japan or South Korea or even central Europe.
Yes, these are clearly not universal human issues if somewhere like Japan can maintain clean, relatively safe, efficient public transportation. It should be obvious we should be looking outside of the US as to why certain societies are able to solve this issues and others are not.
You mean by enforcing a racially homogenous society which does not allow poor (or anyone really) people from other parts of the world?
I was a cop for several years. I worked hundreds of crashes, and a few fatalities. If cars had a max speed limit of 85 mph, and required the seatbelt to be engaged to work, we'd cut our fatality rate in half. Most nations' DUI laws consider a 0.05 BAC as illegal. In most US states 0.08 is presumed under the influence, 0.06 - 0.079 is considered no presumption either way, and under .06 is considered not under the infl…
Not wearing a seatbelt is an individual choice, and should not be a crime. P.S. Growing up, my dad had the dealer install seatbelts in the family wagon before he picked it up. We never moved an inch unless everyone was buckled up. Nobody else, and I mean nobody else, had seatbelts in their car at the time. P.P.S. Seatbelts also saved my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from the fact your own death is always going to impose a cost on society, I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision, reducing your chance of injuring others (both in and outside said vehicle).
You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in your death. > I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung about totally out of my control.
If someone else happens to be in that car with you. Then it very likely you’re gonna kill them. If multiple people are not wearing a seatbelt, then the problems only escalates from there.
Sitting in the back doesn’t changes the dynamics much either. Car seats aren’t designed to withstand a 60+kg mass hitting them from behind at 80mph. They fold flat, and anyone still sitting in them gets folded flat at well, and that’s all before you start worrying about what happens when two skulls collide at 30-100mph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While a careful, attentive driver in a well-maintained vehicle certainly isn’t immune, their risk is much lower than someone who drives tired, drunk, or high in a car with bald tires and bad brakes. You could have just stopped at "control". That's the fundamental dynamic by which we can explain this differential public sentiment--a sense of control or lack thereof, independent of whether that control actually exist…
What's interesting here is that it's a very specific, narrow form of control. The driver of the car feels in control, because they're operating the motor vehicle, yet on the macro scale, they're operating a motor vehicle because of a whole host of other decisions outside their control. For most people, they don't have the option to not operate a motor vehicle and still live where they do, work where they do, etc. Lik…