Allowing personal use of motor vehicles is immoral

[drumbo]

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph.

Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

Edited September 17, 2020 by drumbo

[iNow]

This is just stupid trolling 

[drumbo]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is just stupid trolling 

The use of the phrase common peasants was tongue in cheek, but I assure you I am serious. Most people do not need to own a car. It is wasteful and frankly dangerous.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

This is just stupid trolling 

!

Moderator Note

Given the lack of foundation and omitting information, I have to agree. It violates our rule on arguing in bad faith

 

[Area54]

10 hours ago, drumbo said:

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph.

Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

I live five miles from the nearest town. Only the last half mile is on a bus route. Half of the distance is on a single track, extremely risky for cyclists. My health precludes me from walking the four miles, then returning carrying groceries. My finances preclude routine use of a taxi. Do you feel my use of a motor vehicle is immoral?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I live five miles from the nearest town. Only the last half mile is on a bus route. Half of the distance is on a single track, extremely risky for cyclists. My health precludes me from walking the four miles, then returning carrying groceries. My finances preclude routine use of a taxi. Do you feel my use of a motor vehicle is immoral?

Why, you selfish sack of crap! What does a common peasant like you need with groceries?! Thanks a lot for killing my grandmother instead of taking the subway!

[drumbo]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I live five miles from the nearest town. Only the last half mile is on a bus route. Half of the distance is on a single track, extremely risky for cyclists. My health precludes me from walking the four miles, then returning carrying groceries. My finances preclude routine use of a taxi. Do you feel my use of a motor vehicle is immoral?

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

[CharonY]

While I think there is a moral argument to made, the loss of life is perhaps not even a good indicator. Obviously we as a society accept loss of life to a certain degree. For example mild flu season roughly kill a similar number of people, and bad ones close to double of that. Still we do not make flu vaccinations mandatory, for example. 

I think a broader argument could be made for the overall impact of private vehicles (such as environmental impact) and balance them with need. One issue that the US has is that in most areas public transportation is really bad and the cities are built around car ownership. So to address the issue it requires a broader discussion on how to revamp cities and how to properly implement public transportation with reduced environmental impact. 

As a sidenote, the highest fatalities (and again, I do not think that this is really that important) are found a) among men in each age group (difference range from 57-75% of all fatalities per age group) and while the group of over 65 year old males are overrepresented, it is even worse for age groups 16-25. Using that logic we basically should only let women between 31 and 60 drive cars.

[drumbo]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As a sidenote, the highest fatalities (and again, I do not think that this is really that important) are found a) among men in each age group (difference range from 57-75% of all fatalities per age group) and while the group of over 65 year old males are overrepresented, it is even worse for age groups 16-25. Using that logic we basically should only let women between 31 and 60 drive cars.

This is a popular misconception. Crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. The highest fatalities are found among men because men drive about 60 percent of annual miles and women drive 40 percent, and therefore men would be expected to be involved in a higher percentage of crashes for each scenario, road conditions and driving skills being equal.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

This is a popular misconception. Crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. The highest fatalities are found among men because men drive about 60 percent of annual miles and women drive 40 percent, and therefore men would be expected to be involved in a higher percentage of crashes for each scenario, road conditions and driving skills being equal.

It depends how you segment the data and the Michigan study was aimed at specific scenarios which is not well-suited for broader interpretation of road safety. 

But take a look at this finer-grained study looking at per km-driven fatality rates . If accounting for actual distance traveled, men had roughly 2-4 times the fatalities compared to women for most driving modes. The main exception were motorcycles (about 12 times higher) and buses (~1.3 times higher). I am not sure whether there are similar studies of that level in the US, but this study suggest rather clearly that regardless of type of vehicle, men are on average at higher risk after accounting for distance driven.

[Area54]

7 hours ago, drumbo said:

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

• Fresh vegatables and fruit do not have a shelf life of 2-4 weeks. You want me to eat chicken nuggets and canned beans?
• Uber's are exploitative. You want me to substitute a claimed immorality for a real immorality?

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why, you selfish sack of crap! What does a common peasant like you need with groceries?! Thanks a lot for killing my grandmother instead of taking the subway!

Well no, if I actually were a peasant I would grow all my own vegetables and drive to town with a horse and cart. (And the local kids would run behind with a sack to collect the horse crap for the vegetable plot.)

[OldChemE]

22 hours ago, drumbo said:

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph.

Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

Being alive is dangerous.  What value is there in living if one cannot enjoy life in the manner they prefer, within the bounds of behavior permitted by society??  Total Deaths in 2018 were over 2 million.  Motor vehicles are a minor component of the risk of living.

[drumbo]

2 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

Being alive is dangerous.  What value is there in living if one cannot enjoy life in the manner they prefer, within the bounds of behavior permitted by society??  Total Deaths in 2018 were over 2 million.  Motor vehicles are a minor component of the risk of living.

Even one death is too many. Would you still be OK with it if your grandma died because a motor vehicle was being operated by an everyday schmuck? Only trained professionals should be allowed to operate these dangerous machines.

Keep in mind that drivers licenses can be gotten by people who have questionable skill. I failed my driving test 4 times in a row before I got it, and I also lied by saying I had the required 10 hours of experience driving on the highway when I did not.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Even one death is too many.

The one thing all life has in common is that it eventually ends. 

I’ll repeat my previous point. This is just stupid trolling. 

[drumbo]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

The one thing all life has in common is that it eventually ends. 

I’ll repeat my previous point. This is just stupid trolling. 

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins. Grandma may not want to die yet, and you do not have the right to put her in danger for your own personal convinience.

[iNow]

Thank you for arguing against a point I never made 

Edited September 18, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

Grandma may not want to die yet, and you do not have the right to put her in danger for your own personal convinience.

Why are you letting your grandma play in the middle of the road ?

[iNow]

Not even that. Let grandma play in the road. Even then she’d be safe in most cases. You can drive around her. The premise that driving a car one time mandates his specific grandmas death underlies his entire point and is absurd.

This isn’t a discussion occurring in good faith. If it were, we’d be discussing thresholds for driving and speed limits and mandates for safety sensing auto-braking technology in new cars and infrastructure improvements and additional sidewalks and car-free zones etc. to minimize pedestrian deaths.

But, we’re not... 

He’s likely just riffing on real life discussions occurring these days around mask mandates or remote schooling or temporarily closing super spreader / non-essential businesses. 

Sad, really. This could be an interesting topic to explore, but he’s almost certainly just trying to feel clever and smugly snickering to himself about how he’s superior to everyone here. 

Edited September 18, 2020 by iNow

[drumbo]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Not even that. Let grandma play in the road. Even then she’d be safe in most cases. You can drive around her. The premise that driving a car one time mandates his specific grandmas death underlies his entire point and is absurd.

The specific is a pivot to the general unless you are selfish. It surely mandates someone's grandma's death, and you should not care less if she isn't your grandma. Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died? I ignored the rest of your post since it's riddled with excessive paranoia.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

It surely mandates someone's grandma's death

I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.  
 

13 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died?

Everyone dies. It’s the only consistently sure thing in life. 
 

13 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I ignored the rest of your post since it's riddled with excessive paranoia

Uh huh. Maybe you need a snack or a nap?

[swansont]

7 hours ago, drumbo said:

The specific is a pivot to the general unless you are selfish. It surely mandates someone's grandma's death, and you should not care less if she isn't your grandma. Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died? 

Who is forcing grandma to get in the car, against her will, without her regard for risk? Aren’t they the immoral one?

If she drives of her own volition and accepts the risk, where is the immorality? She made the choice.

[joigus]

I think we can call it a day.

Everybody get ready for drumbo's next thread: "Fat people should not be allowed in public transport."

Edited September 18, 2020 by joigus

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 9/18/2020 at 10:41 AM, joigus said:

I think we can call it a day.

Everybody get ready for drumbo's next thread: "Fat people should not be allowed in public transport."

In their defence, a reasonable carbon tax surcharge added to their fare should be sufficient...

[Area54]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:30 AM, drumbo said:

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins.

Since your constant attacks are stressing me out, raising my blood pressure and increasing the risk of a fatal stroke or heart attack, will you cease your immoral posting immediately? If not, what is your defence?

P.S. My grandmothers died in 1948 and 1962. They now lie beyond your logic.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

will you cease your immoral posting immediately? 

It’s been taken care of.