Comment by tristor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tristor | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> it's still waaaay safer than driving. Americans grossly underestimate how dangerous driving is.

I think this is part of why the parent poster used the term "psychological safety". The thing about driving is that you are individually in control, you can choose how you drive and that greatly affects the safety of driving. While public transport may be statistically safer, for some people the lack of control increases the feeling of lack of safety. I am one of those people actually. I've been driving for more than 20 years, I've had several accidents, all of which occurred while my vehicle was fully stopped and I was rear-ended by someone not paying attention, some while my car was parked and I wasn't even in it. I've had zero injuries from driving, and I have an impeccably maintained fleet of vehicles and have extensive driving training (I hold a competition racing license, have driven many different types of vehicles, and have done executive protection/pursuit driving training). I feel significantly safer in a vehicle I own, maintain, and control (including my reactions to others) than I do being exposed trapped in a box with random other people, many of whom are dangerous, without any significant recourse. The only way I'd ever take public transport every day is if self-defense were strongly legally protected and I could be armed at all times, because there are too many crazy people out there that will kill you for looking at them accidentally, or for not dropping a dollar in their hat when they're busking, or whatever other reason they contrive in their delusional minds for why they should harm a random person they don't even know.

Statistically I might be safer taking public transport, but in a car I never have to expose myself to random crazies without an escape strategy, and I can choose how I react to other drivers to prevent accidents (I have avoided MANY MANY MANY accidents in my life due to my awareness and superior driving skills).

I think your perspective is pretty common among Americans but your argument undercuts itself when you point out that for as good a driver as you are, you've been involved in multiple accidents outside of your control. The insulating environment of a car gives you the illusion of total control, but all the race training in the world can't help you if a drunk driver swerves into your lane just a little too quickly to react to. Even the best drivers in the world can only mitigate risk on public roads, not eliminate it. I'll cynically point out that you can mitigate that risk on public transit too.

I feel for the psychological safety aspect, I really do. There are some cities in the US where the public transit system gets underutilized and hosts more bad behavior. From personal experience, MARTA seems rough after COVID, and psychological safety rightfully becomes a huge factor in avoiding the public transit system. But your second to last sentence is pure hysteria. If you feel that unsafe in Boston or NYC, I'd advise you to drive armed too, because you could experience trouble from a "random crazy" with road rage.

> I'd advise you to drive armed too, because you could experience trouble from a "random crazy" with road rage.

Agreed, and I do drive armed. I conceal carry every time I leave my house. So far I've only ever experienced one road rage incident in more than 20 years of driving, and it was able to be resolved without needing to use a weapon in self-defense. Unfortunately there's crazy people with self-control issues everywhere.

Generally speaking we have a problem in America that there are a lot of potentially violent mentally-unsound people roaming around, we have no cohesive plan to get these people treatment/help/medication, and in most major cities you will be penalized for defending yourself so you have little recourse if someone decides to attack you. Solving this problem will likely solve many other social problems, but there seems to be little political will to try to solve this problem.

+1

As a former Canadian I often tell people that Canada's gun safety starts with a well funded social safety net.

It's not just that people "cant" (legally) get guns as easily. It's that they dont want to do terrible things with them.

As a current Canadian the only people safe here are the one's making the decision to destroy safety for everyone else. And if you don't take part you must be an 'ist' of some sort.

> Generally speaking we have a problem in America that there are a lot of potentially violent mentally-unsound people roaming around, we have no cohesive plan to get these people treatment/help/medication, and in most major cities you will be penalized for defending yourself so you have little recourse if someone decides to attack you.

Woof, I think this right here is the thing that we'll never get beyond. I get that when we talk about psychological safety for this, it's hard to point at numbers because people don't make measured judgments about numbers... But when you make a claim like that, I think it deserves some numbers to be more than just fear mongering.

> world can't help you if a drunk driver

While yes, we will need to account for this while driving. I do wonder if this takes us way to far from the root. People drive drunk so we need busses to be safe? Sometimes attribution is key and in this case I think we need to allow drunk driving's cause of death be "alcohol industry" and not "driving".

This leads into my argument that if we need gun more control in this country it's only logical we also need more direly Food control and Alcohol control (both obesity and drunkenness harm far far more people than guns)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com