Topic: Right to endanger? - page 4. (Read 6727 times)
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)
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
I think our problem is enforcement
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.
I mean in our discussion here
I think our problem is enforcement
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
No, the problem is that criminals don't follow laws.
I think our problem is enforcement
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
probably only 1% of laws are enforced
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?
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 can already hear it already. Myrkul will pull something out of his ass where pulling the trigger is an act which knowingly puts part of the outcome into the hands of chance, where as driving at an excessive speed is an act in which the driver maintains control. Stupid argument to be sure, for a number of obvious reasons, but still that will be his argument (or would have been, except for this post, which will enable us to head him off at the pass).
Begging the question once more, I see.
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.
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.
I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.
Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.
People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)
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)
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.
I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.
Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.
People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)
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)
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.
I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.
Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.
People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.
I don't think you understand probability. By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident. Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.
Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the difference in speed that is a problem. Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction. Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture. Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.
People are always going to speed and break the law. But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.
I'm trying to provoke the criteria and limits to which endangering is a low risk and unintended consequence of behavior and where it becomes a situation where self defense is justified
If you think the legally posted speed limit is a good tool, then use your self-defense when people exceed it. Every individual has the responsibility to decide for himself what criteria and limits apply when endangering others or when being endangered by others. If your decisions about how much endangerment to tolerate are too high or low, you will adjust. Everyone does this automatically all the time, depending on the circumstances. Anarchists tend to recognize the difference between the danger of getting punished by authorities and the danger of destroying value, and place far more weight on the latter, arguing that the former is immoral and impractical and could and should be reduced to zero. If your search for "the criteria and limits [at] which endangering ... becomes a situation where self defense is justified" is successful, someone will try to use it as a justification for having authorities (and forcing people to pay for them) who will punish those who exceed the limits. But one size does not fit all; everyone should make their own criteria and limits given their (driving) skills.
Jump to: