Who cares? (Austin, Bastrop: insurance, gated, upkeep)

[pop251808]

Did I say five? I meant eight.

[JT-3]

One thing I would not do - ride a bike on these roads. Too many hit and runs and too many distracted drivers.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Newsflash: EVERYBODY'S gonna die. The trick, or the benefit rather, of a well ordered society is to remove certain categories of life from the common causes of death. So, children being born and raised and attending school shouldn't have to die. People going about their daily business, travelling to and from work or to the store, shouldn't have to die. People who go hot air ballooning, they might die. Window washers on scaffolding might die; same for coal miners and policemen. Society's efforts are usually to move certain, often common activities out of the "might die" column and to reduce the number of categories that involve a certain elevated risk of accidental death in the line of their pursuit.
So yeah, it's a design error. There don't need to be nearly so many deaths involving going from point A to point B. But we furnish the philosophy to fit the facts, rather than recoil from the horror and attempt to fix the fixable.

Your fundamental assumption is wrong or at least an opinion vs fact.

It is not the role of government to prevent as many deaths as possible. Instead it should be the role of government to allow people to live as freely as possible making their own choices, which could often result in death. The government should be working to protect us from the malicious acts of others and the negligent acts of others. However at some point the tradeoff of freedom vs lives saved is not worth it.

I prefer punishment after the harmful act has occurred rather than punishment for some behavior preceding the act that might lead to harm.

Dont ban cell phones while driving, but if you cause an accident because you were using a cell phone then you get a much more severe punishment.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Your fundamental assumption is wrong or at least an opinion vs fact.

It is not the role of government to prevent as many deaths as possible. Instead it should be the role of government to allow people to live as freely as possible making their own choices, which could often result in death. The government should be working to protect us from the malicious acts of others and the negligent acts of others. However at some point the tradeoff of freedom vs lives saved is not worth it.

I prefer punishment after the harmful act has occurred rather than punishment for some behavior preceding the act that might lead to harm.

Dont ban cell phones while driving, but if you cause an accident because you were using a cell phone then you get a much more severe punishment.

I don't believe I once mentioned government; you brought it up. I said a well-ordered society. Society exists regardless of type or strictness of government, and a well-ordered one is to be preferred to a chaotic or poorly functioning one. You live next door to someone else, you have a society.

My point was, you want freedom to kill yourself in a hot air balloon, go ahead. But transporting yourself or your children around town shouldn't expose you or them to any significant chance of death, in a well-ordered society. I would suggest we live in a somewhat dysfunctional one, if the rule is that I can die due to others' thoughtless stupidity regarding their cel phones; and even if my estate can sue the offender after I'm gone, that is not much of a consolation to anyone.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Your fundamental assumption is wrong or at least an opinion vs fact.

It is not the role of government to prevent as many deaths as possible. Instead it should be the role of government to allow people to live as freely as possible making their own choices, which could often result in death. The government should be working to protect us from the malicious acts of others and the negligent acts of others. However at some point the tradeoff of freedom vs lives saved is not worth it.

I prefer punishment after the harmful act has occurred rather than punishment for some behavior preceding the act that might lead to harm.

Dont ban cell phones while driving, but if you cause an accident because you were using a cell phone then you get a much more severe punishment.

There are many Middle Eastern countries that may be more to your liking then.

[MtnLion512]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Your fundamental assumption is wrong or at least an opinion vs fact.

It is not the role of government to prevent as many deaths as possible. Instead it should be the role of government to allow people to live as freely as possible making their own choices, which could often result in death. The government should be working to protect us from the malicious acts of others and the negligent acts of others. However at some point the tradeoff of freedom vs lives saved is not worth it.

I prefer punishment after the harmful act has occurred rather than punishment for some behavior preceding the act that might lead to harm.

Dont ban cell phones while driving, but if you cause an accident because you were using a cell phone then you get a much more severe punishment.

The dead (or maimed, or disabled) victims of the harmful act and their families might see your fundamental assumption as wrong. As do I. Banning cell phones while driving is absolutely worth it, because I find actual human lives more valuable than an intangible philosophy on freedom. At some point sure, the tradeoff isn't worth it, but this isn't the line.

[Trainwreck20]

But transporting yourself or your children around town shouldn't expose you or them to any significant chance of death, in a well-ordered society.

Why? What is the fundamental logic here? You may not WANT them to be exposed to danger, but then you CHOOSE to get in a car and go 60 or 70 mph with thousands of other people doing the same. People weigh convenience vs. safety all the time. Our kids went to the daycare closest to our home (2 blocks, neighborhood street). It was a very good daycare. Could we have found a better one? Or a cheaper one? Most likely, but the time in the car (and in traffic) would have gone up by a factor of 10 or something. We weighed the risks, of which time in the car was a big part, and decided to minimize the traffic risk.

I don't understand why people think driving is not dangerous. It is, inherently, the most dangerous thing most people do every day. I agree that we, as a society, should minimize the risk(s) within reason. But to really minimize the risk, we need to limit the speeds to half what they are now, ban motorcycles, require a breathalyzer thingy in every car, divide every road and install a padded barricade in the middle, etc., etc. And, mind you, people would still die.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Why? What is the fundamental logic here? You may not WANT them to be exposed to danger, but then you CHOOSE to get in a car and go 60 or 70 mph with thousands of other people doing the same. People weigh convenience vs. safety all the time. Our kids went to the daycare closest to our home (2 blocks, neighborhood street). It was a very good daycare. Could we have found a better one? Or a cheaper one? Most likely, but the time in the car (and in traffic) would have gone up by a factor of 10 or something. We weighed the risks, of which time in the car was a big part, and decided to minimize the traffic risk.

I don't understand why people think driving is not dangerous. It is, inherently, the most dangerous thing most people do every day. I agree that we, as a society, should minimize the risk(s) within reason. But to really minimize the risk, we need to limit the speeds to half what they are now, ban motorcycles, require a breathalyzer thingy in every car, divide every road and install a padded barricade in the middle, etc., etc. And, mind you, people would still die.

The answer to your "why" is that we KNOW transport can be arranged with FAR less risk of physical mayhem. We CHOOSE not to avail ourselves of such modes of transport. The question we should all ask ourselves is why, and then, cui bono.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by pop251808

The answer to your "why" is that we KNOW transport can be arranged with FAR less risk of physical mayhem. We CHOOSE not to avail ourselves of such modes of transport. The question we should all ask ourselves is why, and then, cui bono.

But it is not as simple as 'just doing it'. There is trial and error with driverless cars (with deaths), and enough cost with a comprehensive public transportation network that it cant be just 'implemented' overnight. And yes, I could chose to ride the bus to work right now. It would take literally hours per day longer than my 15 minutes car ride. I am choosing to spend time with my family in exchange for the incremental risk of driving. Note that mass transit, ofc, is not w/o some risk. Hell, I would have to walk along a public street after getting off the bus (or getting to it) and might get run over!

[Aquitaine]

we KNOW transport can be arranged with FAR less risk of physical mayhem.

We certainly do, and it was proposed at a cost of a billion dollars for about one percent of Austin's population to get off the road.

There is obviously a dollar value at which ideological opponents of mass transit would gladly pay some amount of money for the benefits of reduced traffic.

One billion for one percent doesn't appear to have been it. Especially with driverless cars no longer in the realm of science fiction, it would appear to be an even harder sell today than it was a year ago.

Nothing to see here, folks.