Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldjkfkdsjnv | Hacker News Reader

Dead serious. Why would I take on more risk

And this is the exact reason why additional regulation is necessary. Because each individual would pick the option that minimizes their own risk, while maximizing the total risk, the choice cannot be left to individual choices.

Well, there are individuals with at least a tiny shred of ethics, but you don't tend tofind them in a tacoma with a pristine bed

You _are_ taking on more risk — to the other drivers on the road. That's the crux of the post.

Do you consider that decision as contributing to an arms race?

What's the alternative? Should he choose to risk dying in a crash for the nebulous greater good of lowering the average size of vehicles on the road? This problem will not be solved by individual drivers acting against their own self-interest. It needs to be solved at a societal level, probably with regulations on maximum vehicle size (which already exist, but are being worked around by mfrs)

Signed, A Miata driver. If I ever get in a wreck, I'm guaranteed to lose, but at least I'll go out in style.

Yes, people should absolutely feel a social obligation to make at least some concessions to the greater good.

While this isn't a complete substitute for regulations that systematically fix issues causes by negative externalities, I'd rather live in a society where a lot of problems are avoided because my fellow citizens generally care about my well being, rather than one in which the government needs to intervene left and right.

What do they do when the society around them doesn't care and is reckless? For example, because drinking is so ingrained in many societies today, you have to do what you can to protect yourself from drunk drives.

Sure, it is. I have an SUV, because everyone else here has pickup trucks, and almost nobody can drive to save their own goddamn lives let alone mine. If raised trucks were not allowed, I would drive a sedan.

I wasn't judging, I just couldn't tell if it was satire or reality. Thanks!

I'm more confused why people are outraged at me wanting to protect my own life, or that I would need to feel judged for driving a bigger car. I'm a responsible driver and a regular citizen.

As has been explained to you before, you're just dumping the risk onto others. There's nothing especially praiseworthy about this.

Because part of being a responsible driver is minimizing harm dealt to those around you. In the same way that that requires driving at the speed limit, stopping at cross walks, and signaling before turning, it also requires having a bumper that would minimize fatalities when hitting a pedestrian. (Internal bleeding from a chest-height bumper is much harder to survive than a broken leg from a leg-height bumper.) The difference is that the former are required by both law and morality, while the latter is only required by morality.

You make assumptions that he’ll actually cause harm. I’ve never hit a pedestrian in my car. I’ve never hit someone on a bike. No one close to me that I know of has either. I know quite a few people that have had their cars hit by drunk drivers or reckless drivers.

I don't think that assumption is required here. Whenever predicting the future, it must be dealt in probabilities, not certainties. So if you're playing poker, you must evaluate the strength of your hand based on the cards dealt so far. Retroactively saying that a decision was made correctly because the cards drawn favored it isn't a useful analysis.

In the same way, it isn't necessary to assume that he will cause harm, only that it increases the likelihood of causing harm. With a larger car, a driver is less able to see pedestrians, and children/shorter adults may be blocked from view entirely. Pedestrian injuries and deaths are on the rise in the US, opposite the general trend elsewhere. The primary difference is the prevalence of unnecessarily large cars in the US.

The probability of dying from a car as a pedestrian in 2020 is 0.2% and that includes people committing suicide by car. Dying in a traffic accident with another car is 1.1%. If you're playing the odds in poker, you worry about the latter more than the former.

because you would have some consideration for other people. But hey, there's no law that says you have to care so you can keep thinking the way you're thinking.

Honestly it seems like a weird take to say people should care more about strangers than their own family.

As long as SUVs exist on the road I feel like it’s a safety benefit for my family to have a similarly sized vehicle to protect my wife and child. I can’t control what others do but I can control what I do to keep my family safe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com