Not really. Let’s just take cars as one example. Here’s a partial list of things that exist because society has decided interventions are easily commensurate with risk: locks on gear selectors that only work when the brake is pressed, seatbelt warning lights/tones until you plug the belt in, backup cameras, getting…

I mean, by your stance, why even have any laws against impaired driving? Broader scope, why have any public safety type laws?

Slipper slope fallacy. Try again!

What is your argument? That saving any life is worth any cost? That is patently absurd.

And if that were your wife and kid, what would your thought be? “Oh shit, super unfortunate that this very rare thing happened. Man, I wish that person had better personal responsibility. Oh well, shit happens. Time to move on.”

You are equating all kinds of things that are very different from each other. There is a massive difference between forcing people to do things (or preventing them from doing things) that have direct impact, vs. forcing people to do (or not do) things that have only indirect, low-probability impact. It’s of course a…

Society. That’s how it’s always worked. And what’s “right” shifts over time. As crappy as it might be, it’s better than all the other ones tried thus far.

Until your kid is pasted by a drunk driver. Ah well, that’s what GoFundMe and thoughts & prayers are for, right?

A drink driver ramming a mother and her young children killing them all is very tragic, but it is also very rare. Certainly way too rare to spend literally billions of dollars on a “solution” that will inconvenience something like 300 million drivers every day. 30 seconds per day across 300 million drivers is almost…

This. The solution to US traffic deaths is pretty damn clear, and it doesn’t require speed limiters in cars, breathalyzer interlocks, or other things that inconvenience everyone to address the idiocy of a small minority. We need much better, more extensive driver training, and MUCH more stringent driving tests. THAT…

It’s not worth it why?

Some people have to be forced into doing the right thing.

“You can’t save everyone from themselves.”

Lol yeah dude because when a dad dies in a car crash, it’s only him who is affected.

In the case of drunk drivers at least, you’re protecting others from the drunks. It seems like most of the time, the drunk driver is the only one to make it out of an accident alive.

Your freedom ends where it impinges on mine. Very simple thesis by which all of these should be adopted, as well as making it IMPOSSIBLE for cars to go above the speed limit on public roads.

Exactly. Not every intervention to save lives is worth it. If saving lives is all that mattered, we should all be locked up in life support pods, in ideal conditions to keep us away from any kind of risk. That’s also why the “Vision Zero” thing is stupid and bad. Not all risks can be eliminated, because eliminating…

Just had a sad thought - this ridiculous monster could be beaten by an electric car...

Awesome. Anything is better than the battery EV disaster. Even better would be to focus on developing carbon-neutral synthetic gas and diesel, so we can immediately make all existing vehicles carbon-neutral.

The i8 may not be douchey, but buying one is certainly an indication of laughably bad judgment. $150K for a 3-cylinder hybrid.