8 ms·

Well, it would be good for the rest of us on the road if people driving two tons of murder box are 0% impaired. I'm no angel but I have gotten more diligent...

• sallveburrpi 9mo ago
  Zero degree of impairment is only possible if we don’t have access to 2 tons of murder box. I think the way cars dominate roads and our public spaces and how they are being used is inherently dangerous. I know this is going to get downvoted by people who cant imagine an alternative but it’s possible all the same.
  • the_gastropod 9mo ago
    I borderline want a conscription-style policy, where young adults are required to live in Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, DC, Seattle, or Chicago, car-free for a year. Americans’ inability to even imagine a world where a car isn’t the way to get around is really a problem.
    • nradov 9mo ago
      Some of those cities you listed have rather high death rates for young adults for reasons unrelated to cars.
  • Nasrudith 9mo ago
    I don't think you understand what "inherently dangerous" actually means. FYI murder requires intent, otherwise it is just manslaughter. Your indoctrination is showing by your turns of phrase.
    • rafabulsing 9mo ago
      Cars are inherently dangerous, though. They're multi ton hunks of metal moving at high speeds. That's dangerous from literally any angle you can imagine. There are ways to make it less dangerous, sure. But they're never 100% safe. Which makes them, by definition, inherently dangerous. That's... What those words mean.
      • sokoloff 9mo ago
        So long as you’re also willing to label swimming pools, grapes, and crayons as, by definition, inherently dangerous on account of not being able to be made 100% safe, then I’ll at least grant you a level of consistency in your argument.
        • rafabulsing 9mo ago
          Swimming pools are absolutely inherently dangerous. Why do you think lifeguards are a thing? Like, really man? If you can't even recognize as dangerous the one activity that famously requires someone specifically trained to save people to be present, then I'm happy to end this conversation right here. It's clearly just a waste of time all around. I just hope there's no one in your life depending on you to judge what's safe and what's not.
          • nradov 9mo ago
            No lifeguard on duty. Swim at your own risk.
        • Mawr 9mo ago
          Comparing "100% safe" vs the danger cars represent is so ridiculous I have to question if you're kidding? We're talking 40,000 people killed every year in the US alone on account of traffic accidents. And you're talking about grapes and crayons? And swimming pools are pretty dangerous though? There are around 4,500 drowning deaths per year in the US, so on the order of 10x fewer than due to car accidents, but still quite a lot.
• wiml 9mo ago
  There are some occupations where we aspire to that low level of risk. But it would mean that driving can't be an everyday activity for ordinary people. No driving if you haven't been getting proper sleep; no driving if jet lagged. No driving if your attention is impaired by grief, stress, or impatience. Or if your annual physical reveals a risk. Or if you've ever had psychological complaints. We should absolutely make transportation safer, but it's a continuum of tradeoffs.
  • mrj 9mo ago
    That's probably not the thing to tell a parent whose kid just made a dent and a black smudge on a MachE. I don't want to over index on the "think of the kids" argument, but we don't take driving seriously enough. Wikipedia says: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of preventable death for people aged 5–22, and the second most common cause for ages 23–67. The linked article is astounding. The attitude in this thread is astounding, too. Because driving is ubiquitous and necessary in most of the US, we've become too accepting of the problems. Yes, if you're hitting the vape pen every day you should absolutely not be driving. Jetlagged? Take an Uber. Stroke risk? Give us the keys.
    • wiml 9mo ago
      Okay, that was insensitive of me. But yes, what you say is the logical consequence (except I'm not kidding about grief and impatience). My point really is that if we want our kids not to get horribly injured or killed, we can't just focus on "other people" making bad decisions like driving drunk. We have to acknowledge that we've collectively built a system that requires people to put each other in danger with cars, and we have to think about how to change that. Cars bring a lot of benefits like autonomy and decentralization, how do we keep that but kill fewer people?
      • ElectronCharge 9mo ago
        Buy a Tesla with FSD. No, it’s not L5 autonomy, but it’s already safer than the average human driver…and autonomous cars will only get better.
• deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
• Dylan16807 9mo ago
  There's not really such a thing as 0% impaired. People fluctuate day to day, hour to hour, and have different baselines.
  • mrj 9mo ago
    Sure.. I just was addressing the goal makes sense that drivers are not impaired. Of course nobody is perfect.
    • Dylan16807 9mo ago
      A goal like that is far enough from what is actually possible that I think it's not a good goal. Maybe a slogan.
• Mawr 9mo ago
  > Also, my son was just hit by a driver while he was on a bike and in the bike lane. Let me guess, the painted line on the road did not in fact prevent the vehicle from crossing into the bike lane? What we as a society consider acceptable cycling infrastructure is pathetic.
• sethammons 9mo ago
  0% impaired? We know tired drivers are impaired. Should we require drivers to demonstrate 8hrs of sleep before operating a vehicle? What about people who do ok on less sleep? I think there are obvious issues with such a proposal and those issues transfer to THC usage. I would bet, if we could measure it, a large portion of fatal accidents would involve people who are not fully rested and had missed the 8hr target multiple times in the preceding week or two