You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
In US, driving takes 51min/day, & causes 40K of 2.8M deaths. That's 3.5% of time, but only 1.4% of deaths. So relative to its place in our lives, driving is not that dangerous. Yet we see danger as justifying big freedom limits we not accept elsewhere: license, insure, visible ID
That is, we must get government approval to be on road at all, when there we must show a big visible ID tag all can read, and we must have liability insurance to cover ways we might harm others. Yet we don't tolerate such limits most elsewhere.
Sources: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/02/think-youre-in-your-car-more-youre-right-americans-spend-70-billion-hours-behind-the-wheel/ … https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php …https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/traffic-deaths-in-u-s-exceed-40-000-for-third-straight-year …
To be more consistent, I'm willing to consider similar limits in other parts of life, such as requiring general liability insurance, visible IDs for all (eg via RFID tags), and passing tests as activity pre-requisites.
Many say my original tweet ignores the possibility that regulations may reduce deaths. Of course it may, but more regulation in other areas might also cut more deaths in those other areas. So that fact doesn't explain why we treat cars differently.
Many take issue with my quick calculation as a way to estimate the marginal value of regulation for cars. Yes of course it is a crude estimate. The point was just to make a ballpark comparison with other activities, not to make an exact estimate.
Many presume that only deaths attributed to particular activities matter for activity riskiness. But in fact, overall death rates are influenced to a great degree by our behavior, and most all activities contribute. So most activities have substantial death consequences.
hey arent you the state mandated gf guy
That’s a lie
no, THAT'S a lie
At this point don't you feel some obligation to support your accusation with concrete evidence?
Is the marketplace of ideas not evidence enough for you Robin
The justification of restriction doesn't come from the danger; it comes from the chance that person A's carelessness can kill person B, p > 0. Every activity where this can happen -- e.g. electrical wiring in a common space, driving, practicing medicine -- is regulated.
No, there are lots of big areas of life where we hurt each other lots, but have low regulation.
Well, guns, yes. And particulate pollution and carbon emissions. I'll grant those (and argue for much stronger regulation in those areas). What other areas?
If your point is that we should be more aggressive about enforcing laws against domestic violence, stalking, etc, or that we should have mandatory comprehensive sex-ed, including relationship health, I agree 100%. But why these other examples = less car regs? It's not zero sum.
I didn't say less car regs.
I think that's the way everyone is reading your post! If, instead, your claim is that other areas of life (I've ID'd guns, some pollution, and interpersonal violence as examples) have a similar dynamic and could be better regulated, then we agree. But you might want to clarify.
That's because "everyone" on Twitter presumes that every tweet is trying to take sides in current political/cultural wars.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
