A4E Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I tried to make the topic name as boiled down as possible. My mother gets distressed every time she hears about young people who dies in traffic locally, and most notably they are usually caused by high speeds, and those are the ones I will focus on here. I tried to lecture my mother, that its not really a tragedy, because they clearly wanted to die. I also tried to explain that in the case of passengers, they would probably know what kind of person the driver is, or if not, then they choose to trust a stranger to transport them in a vehicle that is well known to be dangerous to the physical body, so that passengers are not really victims of anything forced upon them either. I have not thought much about it, and so maybe I am making some mistakes in my line of reasoning, which is why I want to talk about it here. The driver chose him/herself to bring the vehicle to a high speed. I'd say all people know that high speed can kill you, and so those young people seem to rather risk death, than to not look cool, or in the case of passengers, let go of social/group pressure. That much is pretty straight forward, and I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but my hypothesis is to say that if they are going too fast for their own safety, then they basically want to die. More so than merely risking death. Now, the driver could make excuses for driving fast. Maybe to save time, so then the driver does not want to die, but just save time. That means this person is willing to risk death in order to save time. So how could it be concluded that this person wants to die? Say that I am going to parachute out of a plane, and I notice that my parachute is damaged. I have no idea if the damage will be of no consequence, or if it will make me drop slightly slower than a rock. I want to save time, and money, which is also why I bought a parachute without a backup parachute, so I dive out anyway. I clearly choose to risk death in order to save time and money, but can it be said that I clearly want to die? Say that I order food in a restaurant, and at the same moment I receive my plate, some of the customers show major signs of food poisoning and are rushed to hospital. I decide to eat my meal. Do I want to die, or am I just willing to risk death in order to enjoy the meal? I can try to make my proposal silly, by saying that entering a train is the same as wanting to die unless you know the man in control of the train. Or that just being alive is the same as wanting to die the minute I learn that a meteorite from space could kill me at any moment, unless I build or stay underneath a sufficiently strong protective structure. Would such examples have to be valid and included in my hypothesis? Or is it ok to make a distinction between 'solid' examples like the damaged parachute situation, and silly examples like entering a train without knowing the driver. I think I can strengthen my hypothesis, by including continuation. If I want to parachute out of a plane every day and I intentionally cut the parachute randomly with a scissors. Do I want to die, or just risk death for more excitement? Does it change with the percentage chance of dying? How high a percentage, or continuation of lower percentage (which increase the chance of ) would it take to be able to say, -That person clearly wanted to die. I could take an old revolver with one bullet inside. Spin it and press the trigger to my head to win a bet, but if I made the same bet every day, do I want to die, or just risk death to win money? To sum up, do you think it is erroneous to say that young people who were going too fast in cars, every day, and knew the danger, and ended up dead because of it, wanted to die? 1
dayna j. Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 What do you define as being "too fast"? Driving beyond the posted speed-limit, or something else? As it stands, the term "too fast" is vague. You say that all people know that driving at a high speed can kill you: This is not true. Being involved in a car accident is what can kill you--and one can get into a fatal accident whether one is driving the posted speed limit or beyond the posted speed limit. Driving at high speeds may increase the probability of death, but driving at the posted speed limit also entails some probability of death. Does the probability of death increase as one increases the rate of travel? Yes, I'm sure it does, but I don't know how one would quantify it precisely. In either case, it is impossible to get into the mind of another person to know whether they "wanted to die" or not, in this circumstance. 1
Eternal Growth Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Taking a risk doesn't mean that you want the negative thing that has an increased possibility of taking place. It only means that you want the positive thing that could also result e.g. the thrill / coolness of driving fast or the convenience of getting somewhere more quickly, and you are incurring the risk of the thing that you don't want because it could potentially pay off. For example, if I invest in the stock market, I don't want there to be an economic crisis that wipes out my investment - it is only a risk I am taking. What I want is economic growth that multiplies it. Perhaps you are confusing desire and responsibility? A person who drives too fast and dies as a result didn't want to die, but they are responsible for it. A person who loses money on the stock market is responsible for it, etc. As a side note, a very large percentage of the victims of motor traffic are pedestrians and cyclists. Those are the people I would feel most sympathy for, as their modes of transport are almost entirely safe, and they are killed or injured as collateral damage of those who transport themselves in dangerous machines - your mother's distress would make a lot of sense if directed toward these.
MagnumPI Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 So, is NASCAR a death race?Excessive speed, too fast, these terms mean nothing without context. A Ferrari on the highway alone at night can max with a good driver, with no harm. The same car, same speeds, with a 16 year old behind the wheel will be much more likely to crash. A 1995 Accord with bald tires on a city street with some bends and a median trying to max... Very likely to crash.They're inexperienced, lack judgment and guidance, and probably drive shitty cars with poor maintenance. The ever increasing push toward luxury and drivable appliances amplifies ones' confidence and inhibits their ability to enhance their driving skill. Someone who can deadlift 150lbs, trying to deadlift 280lbs doesn't secretly want to break their spine, they're just an idiot.
AynRand Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 This sounds similar to "lighting up a cigarette is a suicidal act".
green banana Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Most people who drive fast don't have a deathwish, rather they don't understand physics. Doubling the speed with the weight remaining constant means that the kinetic energy increases by a factor of 4. That, and a lack of driving skill (how to react to oversteering and understeering) causes deaths due to ignorance.
shirgall Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 There's plenty of people that feel they are above average drivers, more lucky than most, and have more important things to do than others.
MMX2010 Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No, even if only because the alternative possibility exists that you want to be told a good reason to live.
fractional slacker Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Fine line between fast driving ( a rational strategy) and reckless driving (an irrational strategy). So fine that it's completely subjective. A fast driver may have a death wish, indeed. But a death wish in and of itself is a vague and subjective idea with no objective standard to be measured against. The issue at hand termed in a more neutral fashion would seem to be one of risk vs. reward in the context of a social interaction: driving. When does the collective desire for less risk (frowning on fast drivers) outweigh the individual desire for more risk (driving fast)?
A4E Posted July 14, 2015 Author Posted July 14, 2015 Lots of good points, thanks! I guess I can not say that they "want to die" anymore then. Could I say "They are willing to accept possible death and manslaughter in order to get their needs met" ? If so, how could I shorten that phrase? How about "Human landmine" ?
fractional slacker Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 If fairness and truth are your goals, you can only make objective observations ie she was driving over speed limit or driving faster than flow of traffic. If you ascribe intentions, you have moved into the realm of subjective intentions.
A4E Posted July 15, 2015 Author Posted July 15, 2015 If fairness and truth are your goals, you can only make objective observations ie she was driving over speed limit or driving faster than flow of traffic. If you ascribe intentions, you have moved into the realm of subjective intentions. I made a reply to you, but now I am unsure of what you were actually saying. And I did not find much about "subjective intentions" on internet yet, so perhaps you could elaborate on your post. I could see that they may not intend to hurt anyone or themselves, but I am still divided on this, also because in the event they kill someone, they are usually charged for manslaughter, which entails responsibility.
JanneW Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 There's plenty of people that feel they are above average drivers, more lucky than most, and have more important things to do than others. Just a little nitpicking: Almost 50% of people ARE above average drivers, assuming driving skill is normally distributed.
shirgall Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Just a little nitpicking: Almost 50% of people ARE above average drivers, assuming driving skill is normally distributed. Above average skill *and* above average luck *and* above average importance... And, if I was going to pick a nit, there's a long tail in the distribution and therefore a bias (and therefore a curve that centers to the right) of driving skill of those on the road, because below a certain minimum they can't pass the driving test. Imagine the curve that showed the distribution of ages of drivers. Extremely few below 18, but the long tail could stretch out to 100. Average age of a driver will be higher than the average age of people in general.
AccuTron Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 A number of times I found myself as passenger in a car with a dangerously idiotic driver. I was too naive at many levels to predict this when young, and telling a jerk to slow down is probably not going to work because they are a jerk to begin with. Even when older, we assume that a person who volunteers to drive ACTUALLY CAN. I have been shocked on that more than once, and nearly kissed the ground when finally making it safely home.
Recommended Posts