Post by thread:[OT] Focus on the REALproblems

'[OT] Focus on the REALproblems'

{Quote hidden}>-----Original Message-----

>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu] 

>On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler

>Sent: 23 September 2004 13:08

>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.

>Subject: Re: [OT] rules, was Yes, I canned Olin again. Focus 

>on the REALproblems

>

>

>> A good test is to ask "If someone else killed my family 

>because  they 

>> did xxx would I consider that they were acting in an 

>acceptable manner  

>> and that it was 'just an accident'?".

>

>This accident thing is really strange. Think about it... 

>someone running around in a crowded city swinging a hammer and 

>eventually hurting or killing people, not many, just one or 

>two every few years -- he would obviously get prosecuted. But 

>his friend, taking is 2 ton hammer on wheels every night to 

>the bar, also eventually hurting or killing people, also not 

>many, is only causing "accidents".

>

They are very different scenarios though, not really comparable.  No-one (or

at least very few) people drive a car with the actual intention of killing

someone, they simply want to get from A to B.  Wandering around in a crowed

area swinging a hammer has to rasie some doubts about that persons intention

does it not?

>We've gotten to accept most anything that happens on the road 

>as an "accident", as if it were god-given and not a matter of 

>choice. In Germany (and I suspect in most countries) there is 

>a basic /law/ that says you may only drive as fast as is safe 

>within the circumstances. In my interpretation, that means if 

>you hurt or kill somebody, you drove too fast, or in the wrong 

>place, and violated the law.

But do you also agree that pedestrians and cyclists should be held

accountable for their actions rather than simply blaming car drivers for

every accident on the road?

Mike

=======================================================================

This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The

information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by

law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must

not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any

person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have

received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,

forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.

No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or

services.

=======================================================================

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

> But do you also agree that pedestrians and cyclists should be held

> accountable for their actions rather than simply blaming car drivers for

> every accident on the road?

> 

> Mike

Yes. There was a case in my area a few years ago where a pedestrian and

his dog were killed while walking on a road with no sidewalk. Despite

the witnesses saying the pedestrian was walking in the middle of the

road around a curve where he could not be seen, the driver was held

responsible. This seems to have mainly been because the pedestrian

was a very popular man.

And I live and work in a college town where bicyclists routinely

break the traffic laws (going above the posted speeds, running stop

signs, and cutting drivers off). They should be ticketed at the

very least.

-- 

D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,

jayKILLspamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.

http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

At 09:11 AM 9/23/2004, D. Jay Newman wrote:

>> But do you also agree that pedestrians and cyclists should be held

>> accountable for their actions rather than simply blaming car drivers for

>> every accident on the road?

>> 

>> Mike

>

>Yes. There was a case in my area a few years ago where a pedestrian and

>his dog were killed while walking on a road with no sidewalk. Despite

>the witnesses saying the pedestrian was walking in the middle of the

>road around a curve where he could not be seen, the driver was held

>responsible. This seems to have mainly been because the pedestrian

>was a very popular man.

Here in Muncie, most (not all) of our sidewalks have wheelchair ramps, but in some cases there is a telephone pole in the middle of the sidewalk, not 10' from the ramp. In some places, your only choice would be the street, as a brick wall is the other side.  So, we frequently have people deviating into the street.  They just had a festival downtown, so they put up temporary signs on big heavy concrete bases. Right in the middle of the sidewalk.

>And I live and work in a college town where bicyclists routinely

>break the traffic laws (going above the posted speeds, running stop

>signs, and cutting drivers off). They should be ticketed at the

>very least.

I know the feeling, the BSU students here act like there is no traffic. 

I frequently see them just walk diagonally into the road at any point, without looking. 

The kids on their ninja-bikes are about as bad.

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

Yes, but again, the intention does not have any effect on the "deadness" of

the victim. Intentional or not makes me no nevermind. I want to know if it

was preventable.

James. 

> {Original Message removed}
>> This accident thing is really strange. Think about it...  someone

>> running around in a crowded city swinging a hammer and  eventually

>> hurting or killing people, not many, just one or  two every few years

>> -- he would obviously get prosecuted. But  his friend, taking is 2 ton

>> hammer on wheels every night to  the bar, also eventually hurting or

>> killing people, also not  many, is only causing "accidents".

> 

> They are very different scenarios though, not really comparable.  No-one

> (or at least very few) people drive a car with the actual intention of

> killing someone, they simply want to get from A to B.  Wandering around

> in a crowed area swinging a hammer has to rasie some doubts about that

> persons intention does it not? 

Many people drive for fun, say to the bar at night. No real purpose other

than having fun. They do that more or less consciously creating the risk of

killing someone -- every time you drive your car you know that just by acts

of god you don't kill anybody. We were not made to be safe at 50 mph.

How is that so different from someone running around swinging a hammer,

just for fun? The main difference is that the former is socially accepted,

"normal" behavior, the latter is just plain "weird". But both don't intend

to kill anybody, yet both create the risk of doing so, and both don't have

any essential reason to do what they do. Yet the consequences of the former

usually don't get prosecuted in the same way as consequences of the latter.

{Quote hidden}>> We've gotten to accept most anything that happens on the road  as an

>> "accident", as if it were god-given and not a matter of  choice. In

>> Germany (and I suspect in most countries) there is  a basic /law/ that

>> says you may only drive as fast as is safe  within the circumstances.

>> In my interpretation, that means if  you hurt or kill somebody, you

>> drove too fast, or in the wrong  place, and violated the law.

> 

> But do you also agree that pedestrians and cyclists should be held

> accountable for their actions rather than simply blaming car drivers for

> every accident on the road?

Everybody is responsible for their actions. Of course there may be

differences as to what is acceptable. There was a point in time where

public space was public. Later on, after the automobile became more

popular, people realized that in order to be able to really use

automobiles, they had to restrict most public space to automobile use

/only/. Whether that's just or fair is really not a trivial question. The

only thing that's trivial is that it is the basis of an automobilistic

society.

There are some strange turns in logic and responsibility in that area.

Let's take a child, any child. Children are not made for living with

automobiles; for them, automobiles are dangerous, life-threatening,

unpredictable creatures. So if a child is on a road and a driver runs over

it because he couldn't stop in time, it is generally considered not to be

the responsibility of the one operating a machine that is not safe, it is

considered to be the responsibility of the parents to keep the child out of

the way of the dangerous machine. In order to be able to create an

automobilistic society, we had to take away responsibility for actually

operating safely from the driver, and burden others with the responsibility

of creating an environment where the inherent unsafe-ness of motor vehicles

doesn't create excessive (whatever the current societal consensus about

this is) damage. 

I think it's just as plain simple as that: someone kills somebody means

someone killed somebody. It's not because somebody else didn't make sure

that the one he killed was not in his way; it's because he ran them over.

But our automobile laws turn that around: when someone kills somebody with

a car (as opposed to most other "things"), it's often considered the

responsibility of somebody else, who didn't make sure that nothing gets in

the car's way, rather than the driver's responsibility to make sure he

doesn't drive over somebody.

You'll notice that pretty much all traffic laws are made to keep the car

traffic flowing. Some may think that some laws are for the benefit of

pedestrians, for example, but in reality they are made to keep pedestrians

out of the dangerous ways of the cars. There would be nothing unsafe for

pedestrians if they were allowed to just walk on the streets and cars would

have to drive safely between them -- the only difference would be that the

cars would have to go /much/ slower.

This is again this thing about collective choice. We choose that it's ok to

kill with cars. That's nothing inherent in the legal system, the economic

system, the political system or any other part of society; it's a

collective choice how to deal with motor vehicles.

Gerhard

_______________________________________________

http://www.piclist.com

View/change your membership options at

http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist