151–160 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.
We could eliminate food inspection and driver's licenses. That would increase liberty, but I don't think most people would find the freedom worthy of the cost.
"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.
'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.
Really looking forward to being convicted of a DUI for using mouthwash just before leaving the house. I'm pretty sure orange juice can do it too.
Would it not be way more useful if the NTSB focused on road design? As someone from Europe I oftentimes see very wide roads in the USA with a maximum speed of 15 mph or something, their design does not stop one from driving 50+ mph, however. In Europe, you often see that if there's a lower maximum speed, the width of the road is reduced, and obstacles are placed to ensure you actually can't drive significantly faster…
Yup. This drunk driving detection is just a symptom of the larger problem: car dependency. You don’t need alcohol detection in cars if everyone can just walk or bus safely to their neighborhood bar or friends. Virtually nobody wants to drive drunk, but it’s basically encouraged by the way we design our cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By your rationale why don’t you give up cars? If you care for your loved ones so much, Han them from using cars. Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep your family safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?
Because in this country the options are 1. Buy a car because it’s required in order to literally feed yourself, or 2. Live in one of the highly desirable, expensive pre-war neighborhoods that remain walkable Many Americans can’t just “give up cars” even if they wanted to. Car dependency is literally codified in out zoning and street building (MUTCD) Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live,…
This is the goal that is worth spending political action on, not snake oil remedies designed only to advance the careers of politicians peddling them.
"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.
> True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then. OK, but it's the greatest number of fatalities per mile traveled in 14 years, and the highest number per capita in 13 years, though. The recent trend upwards…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t limit acceleration. That would cripple accident avoidance
Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? Limiting acceleration isn't a great solution, but your idea that accelerating cripples avoidance makes even less sense.
you're in the middle lane with cars to your left, right, and rear. the one on the left doesn't see you and starts merging into your lane. if you slam on the brakes, you wouldn't be legally at fault for whatever happens next, but it would probably be best to briskly accelerate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t know why you put safety in quotes. You’re implying that this won’t make streets safer, by reducing drunk driving. But reducing drunk driving would in fact make streets safer. Our goal should be to have zero deaths related to common car usage and driving. For example, the backup camera is there to help reduce the number of people backing up over their own kids. This is a good thing. You can argue that this syste…
I'm not aware of any technology reliable, trustworthy, affordable, and quick enough to accomplish said goal without regularly inconveniencing a significantly larger portion of drivers who may need their vehicles in other emergencies. If you could provide a mechanism that didn't infringe non-drunk drivers rights I'd be more apt to accept this idea. I'd also need to know an override mechanism exists because it seems li…
How about: when you engage the override, a light on your car turns on, as a signal to everyone else on the road that you may be under the influence. Cops who see the light can consider it "reasonable suspicion" to pull you over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? Limiting acceleration isn't a great solution, but your idea that accelerating cripples avoidance makes even less sense.
> Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? you're in the middle lane with cars to your left, right, and rear. the one on the left doesn't see you and starts merging into your lane. if you slam on the brakes, you wouldn't be legally at fault for whatever happens next, but it would probably be best to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? Limiting acceleration isn't a great solution, but your idea that accelerating cripples avoidance makes even less sense.
> Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? you're in the middle lane with cars to your left, right, and rear. the one on the left doesn't see you and starts merging into your lane. if you slam on the brakes, you wouldn't be legally at fault for whatever happens next, but it would probably be best to b…
You are not legally at fault for stopping to avoid an accident.
In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?