“I’m a good driver, I won’t get into trouble and if something does go wrong, I can get myself out of it”
Smoke a cigarette in a nursery, everyone loses their minds, idle your car right next to the nursery entrance, absolutely fine.
Make 60-75 decibels of noise in the middle of a town, you’re a prick and can be subject to a noise complaint, do it in a car, totally normal.
Kill 1,600 people and seriously injure 26,000 annually, you’re a menace, do it in cars, no problemo.
The harms caused by cars are largely externalised, largely ignored, and largely underplayed in our society. We need to pull off the blinders and look at things more clearly if we’re going to make good decisions.
Well yeah, because the other side of risk is reward.
>In one example 75% of people agreed with the statement: “People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes.” But when just two words were changed – “people shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes” – only 17% agreed.
Because there’s an endless list of reasons to drive (some more valid than others, obviously).
Also you can chose where to smoke a lot more than you can chose where to drive.
The hospital one is interesting.
>“If you asked a politician whether a new hospital should be inaccessible to one-fifth of the population, obviously they’d say no,” he said. “Whereas if you asked that same politician whether a hospital should be built on the edge of town, it’s likely that many wouldn’t see the problem”
I’d argue that if the hospital was anywhere in a town it would be served with a bus route so it doesn’t matter it it’s in the edge or in the middle – you still have to get there anyway and if mobility is an issue you will probably use a car rather than a bus.
The rest of the questions highlight interesting stances on mitigatable / objective risk and the way we view them.
“I’ve been driving for 30+ years, im an amazing driver.”
Gj now youre arrogant and your reactions are 30 years slower.
My electric car is smokeless fuel for the modern era.
I’d love an electric cargo bike, that would be a real change driver.
I suspect this has increased massively since the end of the first lockdown too. Driving standards have really fallen and road rage seems to have increased in the last few years. There are emergency gas works causing chaos with the traffic near me, leading to long queues at all times of the day. The number of impatient people making rash u-turns and slaloming down side roads without indicating is ridiculous. I’m a pedestrian but have nearly been hit several times by people not indicating as they try to find a quicker route to work. Driving is dangerous as it is, it is not made any safer by people acting as if they are the only road user around.
This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever read. People accept the risks of doing things that are useful or fun. How many people drink alcohol despite knowing the risks associated with it? How many people get surgery? Complications happen all the time, but there’s a trade-off that people accept, even for cosmetic procedures. It’s not ‘special pleading’ to accept these risks.
not really a surprise when the penalties for poor road use are schizophrenic at best, and not that hard to show as malicious at inception.
dangerous Idiots Enabled to Drive, can be in or on any vehicle, the government and courts are actively fighting to resist this point. my guess is, due to tax revenue and assumptions of class.
9 comments
It’s the illusion of control.
“I’m a good driver, I won’t get into trouble and if something does go wrong, I can get myself out of it”
Smoke a cigarette in a nursery, everyone loses their minds, idle your car right next to the nursery entrance, absolutely fine.
Make 60-75 decibels of noise in the middle of a town, you’re a prick and can be subject to a noise complaint, do it in a car, totally normal.
Kill 1,600 people and seriously injure 26,000 annually, you’re a menace, do it in cars, no problemo.
The harms caused by cars are largely externalised, largely ignored, and largely underplayed in our society. We need to pull off the blinders and look at things more clearly if we’re going to make good decisions.
Well yeah, because the other side of risk is reward.
>In one example 75% of people agreed with the statement: “People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes.” But when just two words were changed – “people shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes” – only 17% agreed.
Because there’s an endless list of reasons to drive (some more valid than others, obviously).
Also you can chose where to smoke a lot more than you can chose where to drive.
The hospital one is interesting.
>“If you asked a politician whether a new hospital should be inaccessible to one-fifth of the population, obviously they’d say no,” he said. “Whereas if you asked that same politician whether a hospital should be built on the edge of town, it’s likely that many wouldn’t see the problem”
I’d argue that if the hospital was anywhere in a town it would be served with a bus route so it doesn’t matter it it’s in the edge or in the middle – you still have to get there anyway and if mobility is an issue you will probably use a car rather than a bus.
The rest of the questions highlight interesting stances on mitigatable / objective risk and the way we view them.
“I’ve been driving for 30+ years, im an amazing driver.”
Gj now youre arrogant and your reactions are 30 years slower.
My electric car is smokeless fuel for the modern era.
I’d love an electric cargo bike, that would be a real change driver.
I suspect this has increased massively since the end of the first lockdown too. Driving standards have really fallen and road rage seems to have increased in the last few years. There are emergency gas works causing chaos with the traffic near me, leading to long queues at all times of the day. The number of impatient people making rash u-turns and slaloming down side roads without indicating is ridiculous. I’m a pedestrian but have nearly been hit several times by people not indicating as they try to find a quicker route to work. Driving is dangerous as it is, it is not made any safer by people acting as if they are the only road user around.
This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever read. People accept the risks of doing things that are useful or fun. How many people drink alcohol despite knowing the risks associated with it? How many people get surgery? Complications happen all the time, but there’s a trade-off that people accept, even for cosmetic procedures. It’s not ‘special pleading’ to accept these risks.
not really a surprise when the penalties for poor road use are schizophrenic at best, and not that hard to show as malicious at inception.
dangerous Idiots Enabled to Drive, can be in or on any vehicle, the government and courts are actively fighting to resist this point. my guess is, due to tax revenue and assumptions of class.