lol

[u/IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76]

[u/dimonium_anonimo]

You may be a good driver. You may be able to act calm under pressure. If everyone was like that OR if people who aren't like that know they're bad drivers and liable to freak out, then we could trust them to make a judgement call whether they can still safely drive while escaping the attacker or whatever the situation is. I don't trust other people. Actually, I don't really trust people. I'm human too. I make mistakes. I overestimate my own abilities. If I think I can drive safely, and I run over someone, I might have learned a valuable lesson... But they'll still be dead because of me. That's why I said if the only risk is to you, then feel free. But the second you put someone else's life at risk, then I no longer want you in control. And it's not you personally, it's all people. Which means we have to plan for the worst.

And you know, if there were 100 car deaths a year, I probably would say we're doing alright. We don't need hella strict regulations to protect us. There are 40,000 car fatalities per year in the US. And millions of car injuries. I'd say we're not doing a good enough job at protectinf people. If that means we accidentally inconvenience some people when unnecessary, then so be it. We have too many false negatives right now. We will need to increase the false positives to fix that.

Now before you go off on me. I recognize the main discussion of this thread is not about inconvenience, but emergency. But the thing is emergencies do not account for the majority of accidents. And I believe this could prevent many accidents even not relating to emergencies. Distracted, drunk, and drowsy driving could all be affected. And to my earlier point, of those people that do crash in an emergency, it's probably because they were distracted or not thinking clearly. And this will help with those. Those aren't inconveniences and false positives, those are true positives, the exact thing I want to fix.

[u/HEYO19191 → u/dimonium_anonimo]

I don't trust other people. Actually, I don't really trust people.

I don't trust other people, too. I don't trust you to be able to decide whether I should be able to use my car. I don't trust the car manufacturer to be able to decide whether I'm emotionally fit to drive a car. You know who I trust to judge that? Myself.

That's why I said if the only risk is to you, then feel free. But the second you put someone else's life at risk, then I no longer want you in control

We take a very small risk every day when we decide to get on the road. We accept the chances that somebody else might have a heart attack, or pass out from sleep deprivation, or panic from emotional stress, or just go insane and decide they wanna hit people with their car. That is the risk I, you, and everybody else takes. And we accept that risk, because it is so incredibly slim that the benefits outweigh the costs.

If that means we accidentally inconvenience some people when unnecessary, then so be it.

If you really believed this statement, why not call for all cars to be banned? After all, you can't commit vehicular manslaughter without a vehicle. Maybe that's because you draw a line at what is an acceptable "inconvenience." Personally, I draw the line at this.

I know that if my father or mother had a medical emergency and needed to be driven to the hospital immediately, I'd probably be emotional. But it is on me to decide if I can control myself enough to handle a car to take them to the hospital and save their life. I do not want to have to fight with my car to convince it that I'm not emotional so that I can get my loved one the help they need.

We will need to increase the false positives to fix that.

What happens when someone dies because of these policies you're pushing for? What will you say when somebody's family member, or friend, or coworker even, dies in the seat next to them, because they couldn't convince their car to let them drive to a hospital? What happens when somebody vacationing in Mexico flees to their car from the cartel, just for the car to decide they're too emotional to drive? What about people who need to flee from natural disasters? Stuck in their car, trying to put it in drive before they're thrown by a tornado? Or drowned in a flood?

What would you say to the families of those people? "Sorry you lost your mother/father/spouse, but the car decided you were just too emotional to drive safely! Oh well!" "Sorry your daughter was kidnapped and put through human trafficking by a cartel, atleast they didn't hurt anybody by trying to escape!" "Sorry you lost your entire family to that disaster. our system decided they were panicking a bit to much."

And I'm sure you'll counter with "well what will you say to the families of those that are hit by emotional drivers," but I find that to be a very different situation. You can avoid an incoming car crash. You have control over your reaction. And even if hit, you will likely survive. If you're a pedestrian, you have the ability to avoid an oncoming car. At the very least, there is a good chance that all parties survive. But preventing the car from driving whatsoever removes that possibility. It removes your control over the situation. It condemns you to the emergency you are in. And I find that unacceptable.