I> A person can actually, literally, control whether their car hits anything. It’s a solvable problem.
That is a really silly way to look at car accidents and the tragedies that come out of them. Just because you could rewind time and change what the drivers were doing to avoid a crash happening doesn’t really mean anything about the inherent risk factors to driving. Accidents are going to happen, we live in the real world not the one in which people behave consistently and perfectly and freak unexpected situations never happen.
Further, most people HAVE to drive their car in order to live their life on a daily basis (getting to work and back being the most obvious need). Driving isn’t a choice for most people at least in the US, so people are absolutely always going to be driving when they really don’t want to or aren’t at their most alert. It is just something we have to do sometimes in order to make ends meet in our lives.
I disagree. It’s like a gun. There’s negligence, but “true accidents” I’m not sure if I buy it.
No, you can walk around with a gun, even with it cocked and so long as you keep your finger off the trigger the likelihood of an unavoidable or unforeseen accident is still fairly low. A gun is an inert object that must be compelled to become lethal by the pressing of a trigger. A 5000 pound SUV on the other hand, by simply moving at normal driving speeds in close proximity to other people, consistently presents lethal opportunities that the driver must actively take steps to prevent from becoming realities.
A gun and a car are almost precise opposites in that respect. A car is like a gun that periodically aims at someone and automatically begins a firing sequence and you have to be paying attention enough to actively intervene and stop it.
No, you can walk around with a gun, even with it cocked and so long as you keep your finger off the trigger the likelihood of an unavoidable or unforeseen accident is still fairly low. A gun is an inert object that must be compelled to become lethal by the pressing of a trigger. A 5000 pound SUV on the other hand, by simply moving at normal driving speeds in close proximity to other people, consistently presents lethal opportunities that the driver must actively take steps to prevent from becoming realities. A gun and a car are almost precise opposites in that respect.
This is, I think, an apples:oranges comparison as you’re not taking the objects’ functional properties into account.
What is a gun, objectively, designed to do, in the most basic terms?
Fire a projectile when the trigger mechanism is actuated.
What is an automobile designed to do, in similar terms?
Move, when the accelerator is pressed and slow when the brake pedal is pressed.
An apples:apples comparison would be something closer to this:
You can walk around with a safely holstered gun and, barring a very unlikely malfunction or external factors, it will not go off, until the trigger is pulled. You can also walk around a safely parked car and, barring a mechanical malfunction or external factors, it will not move, unless someone presses the accelerator.
Like a computer, cars and firearms generally just do what their operator “tells” them to do.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.
I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.
I disagree. It’s like a gun. There’s negligence, but “true accidents” I’m not sure if I buy it.
A person can actually, literally, control whether their car hits anything. It’s a solvable problem.
I> A person can actually, literally, control whether their car hits anything. It’s a solvable problem.
That is a really silly way to look at car accidents and the tragedies that come out of them. Just because you could rewind time and change what the drivers were doing to avoid a crash happening doesn’t really mean anything about the inherent risk factors to driving. Accidents are going to happen, we live in the real world not the one in which people behave consistently and perfectly and freak unexpected situations never happen.
Further, most people HAVE to drive their car in order to live their life on a daily basis (getting to work and back being the most obvious need). Driving isn’t a choice for most people at least in the US, so people are absolutely always going to be driving when they really don’t want to or aren’t at their most alert. It is just something we have to do sometimes in order to make ends meet in our lives.
No, you can walk around with a gun, even with it cocked and so long as you keep your finger off the trigger the likelihood of an unavoidable or unforeseen accident is still fairly low. A gun is an inert object that must be compelled to become lethal by the pressing of a trigger. A 5000 pound SUV on the other hand, by simply moving at normal driving speeds in close proximity to other people, consistently presents lethal opportunities that the driver must actively take steps to prevent from becoming realities.
A gun and a car are almost precise opposites in that respect. A car is like a gun that periodically aims at someone and automatically begins a firing sequence and you have to be paying attention enough to actively intervene and stop it.
This is, I think, an apples:oranges comparison as you’re not taking the objects’ functional properties into account.
What is a gun, objectively, designed to do, in the most basic terms?
Fire a projectile when the trigger mechanism is actuated.
What is an automobile designed to do, in similar terms?
Move, when the accelerator is pressed and slow when the brake pedal is pressed.
An apples:apples comparison would be something closer to this:
You can walk around with a safely holstered gun and, barring a very unlikely malfunction or external factors, it will not go off, until the trigger is pulled. You can also walk around a safely parked car and, barring a mechanical malfunction or external factors, it will not move, unless someone presses the accelerator.
Like a computer, cars and firearms generally just do what their operator “tells” them to do.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.
I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.