Right to endanger?

[420]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

[myrkul]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.

[420]

I think our problem is enforcement

probably only 1% of laws are enforced

No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.

I mean in our discussion here

[Richy_T]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

50% there. If you also privatise the roads, you'll contract to use them and agree to terms. Speed limits will be set according to safety and efficiency rather than to enrich local municipalities. Rules will be enforced likewise and not just because it's easy to sit at the side of the road and read numbers off of a display.

Course, that whole corporate limited liability thing will need to go too.

[myrkul]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

50% there. If you also privatise the roads, you'll contract to use them and agree to terms. Speed limits will be set according to safety and efficiency rather than to enrich local municipalities. Rules will be enforced likewise and not just because it's easy to sit at the side of the road and read numbers off of a display.

Course, that whole corporate limited liability thing will need to go too.

Well, without all that, what do you even need a government for?

[420]

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

me likey

wait...who determine 'cause' ? just mutually accepted arbitrage?

[nimda]

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.

Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment.

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

[420]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

[nimda]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

[420]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now

You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license?

which state(s)

[yogi]

[Richy_T]

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

But a twist... That person is Adolf Hitler

But he's rescuing orphans...

One of whom would grow up to be Stalin

Another one, Einstein...

Just what do you do, man???

[myrkul]

No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.

Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment.

And if road conditions require that to drive safely, you break the lower limit?

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?

Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?

I flip a coin. If it lands tails, I shoot you. If it lands heads, I don't. Which is the immoral decision, to pull the trigger, or to flip the coin?

If you're deadly serious about pulling the trigger if the coin lands tails, then I would argue flipping the coin is. Just like pressing either of those buttons.

But you can't compare either of these situations to anything in the real world (well, unless your name is Harvey Dent). Driving fast (even over the posted speed limit) isn't the same as pushing a button which has a 50% chance of killing someone. If you know what you're doing, you can drive safely at much greater speeds than allowed on any US roadway. As vehicular technology has improved, that speed, and the speed at which you can survive an accident, has increased.

Every sane person knows that driving is risky. Even if you follow all the traffic laws, and drive carefully, some drunk might plow into you while you're stopped at a light. Or you might lose control due to mechanical failure or road conditions. Shit happens. The question is how to reduce the likelihood of shit happening. Do we do it by setting an arbitrary speed that you "should" drive, or do we hold accountable those who cause shit to happen, encouraging them to drive carefully?

wait...who determine 'cause' ? just mutually accepted arbitrage?

I don't think making money on the price differences between two exchanges will help here. Anyway, determining "fault" in an accident is a well established science.

[Richy_T]

This is a little tangental but interesting.

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/naked-roads.htm

The essence is that by tightly regulating the roads, a false sense of security is engendered. When responsibility is put back of the driver, speeds drop in dangerous areas and safety is improved. Certainly I know of a couple of places where it would be possible to get in trouble from over-confidence in signs and markings.

To the question originally asked, I think the subject is somewhat muddied and is getting conflated with other issues. I think myrkul touches on this when he refers to threatening behavior but I don't think that's the whole story. Certainly it's possible to deliberately endanger people in ways that would not be considered breaking the law if there was no adverse outcome.

[nimda]

What about driving drunk, myrkul?

[myrkul]

What about driving drunk, myrkul?

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years (It couldn't have been him, you see, he was stone drunk.), and he never even got a ticket. Never even parked bad, for that matter.

If you were to have an accident while intoxicated, I'd say that is certainly strong evidence that said accident was your fault. Is it a certainty that driving drunk causes accidents? I'd say my grandfather is evidence to the contrary. I'm not recommending it. It's not a good idea. But if there's no accident as a result, where's the harm? And if there's no harm, where's the crime?

[stochastic]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

[Richy_T]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

True. And I look forward to that day. Hopefully the daily commute will be obsolete for many also. I find it hard to believe all the fuss being made about the green agenda when no one seems to be pushing for the most obvious energy saving measure of all - removing the need to use a ton of steel to move a couple of hundred pounds of flesh around (let alone the human cost of it all).

[myrkul]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

Maybe. People have been prophesying self-driving cars for decades. If it happens, it will make pretty much all traffic laws obsolete. Considering how much of local government's revenue comes in through these sorts of violations, I expect heavy resistance.

[stochastic]

My grandfather's truck drove him home for nearly 20 years

Why is everyone arguing about speed limits?  They will be obsolete in 10-20 years.  With self driving cars the car's computer will only allow the car to go at a set speed, which will be determined by the safe road speed, the weather conditions, and by the other cars around.  Good bye revenue for speed trap towns.

Maybe. People have been prophesying self-driving cars for decades. If it happens, it will make pretty much all traffic laws obsolete. Considering how much of local government's revenue comes in through these sorts of violations, I expect heavy resistance.

Technology makes the government obsolete again.