this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
184 points (99.5% liked)
chapotraphouse
13782 readers
641 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Moot.
Moot.
Moot.
It doesn't matter what driving should be like. This is what it is, and if you don't follow it then you are putting yourself and others in danger.
It's not an immuteable fact, you know? In fact, you could help change it by not blaming red light cameras for people being rear ended by people not keeping a safe distance
When did I blame the red light camera? When did I assign any qualitative attribute to anything at all?
Are you 13 or something? Live in a nice city with public transport? This is what driving is like. There is a sociological component to it, and in certain places it makes a more dangerous maneuver the safer option. I can tsk tsk other drivers in Boston or LA but it doesn't change reality. The people in these places have, collectively and unconsciously, chosen for this to be the way it works. I don't like it but outside of not driving in these places, there's not much I can do about it.
You could stop defending it as an immutable fact and calling people who question this 13 year olds
I am not defending anything? Why are you assigning any intent to my comments besides to give information? Driving in different cities requires understanding the cities culture. In some extreme cases, you have to break traffic laws because the actions of others will make adhering to those laws is the less safe option. I am not saying that it's a good thing or that it should stay that way, but it is the way it is at this time.
The purpose of traffic laws and enforcement is to kake things safer for people. If people are crashing over new enforcement policy, the moral choice for a city to make is to determine what will save the most lives. It's of no consequence to the city if they look at who caused the accident and they say "Guy in the back drove too close, lol, not our fault. Our laws are clear."
Yes, the trailing driver should leave space, but its the job of a traffic engineer to account for human variability and advise ways to minimize risk despite the tendency of some people to acy irrationally
Outside of a few specific places if we're talking car dominated societies this is demonstrably untrue, the point is to make it faster for people in cars, maybe a bit safer and the rest is at best an afterthought. If you wanted to make things safer for everybody, including people in cars, you'd see a lot less wide roads, more obstacles and such.
Again this is only looking at this in the context of cars and nothing else. What kills people when cars run red lights is sometimes cars, but most often people not in cars. And the latter is how the entire system is resolved and is what you're defending here - what's the other option? You can't actually enforce running red lights anymore?
Should be, sure, but that entire field basically runs on the fiction of the ever competent driver who doesn't fuck up. And anytime you try to change this people get up in arms because obviously they're the one person who doesn't make mistakes and as such would like to not be impeded
Then no one should be driving
Agreed. Individual vehicular transport is dangerous and inefficient.
is nigh infinitely better.