This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's still over a 50% increase in pedestrian deaths over about 10 years, enough to push it to the highest raw level since 1990, especially since the EU saw a substantial decline over the past decade. And the chance from 2020 to 2021 was massive.
It's not the only factor, but it's definitely one. SUVs are more dangerous to pedestrians than other cars, and the same factors that make a vehicle safe for its occupants can make others unsafe, encouraging an arms race.
I'm confused by this question. The whole point I'm making is that we use the word "accident" for a lot of car crashes that are preventable, because one or more drivers engaged in some sort of irresponsible or reckless behavior. Asking if I want to jail people for accidents is rather sidestepping the issue. If you speed and follow too close on the highway, resulting in a fatality, yeah, you should be in prison. That's manslaughter; the lack of intent to kill makes it not murder, but it's still generally a crime to behave recklessly and injure other people. A similar situation is literally one of the examples in the wikipedia page on manslaughter.
The change from 2020 to 2021 in non-pedestrian deaths was massive also. I would presume the 2020 and 2021 changes were mostly about COVID and lockdowns, in both cases.
The rise of the SUV and the general increase in size of cars happened both during the period while pedestrian deaths dropped, and while pedestrian deaths rose. Thus it cannot explain those phenomenon, no matter how beautiful the theory is.
The term "accident" does not imply "not preventable", so yes, we use that word.
You are conflating the various mentes rea here. Reckless behavior that results in a fatality is manslaughter. Merely negligent behavior is typically not, and even when it is, the standard for criminal negligence is generally higher than that for ordinary negligence. You are trying to say most traffic accidents should be treated serious crimes; the reason for this would seem to be to discourage driving.
Yes. Car crashes went down, but fatalities went up--likely due at least in part to empty roads allowing for more speeding. (I wonder what this says about the idea that we should build more roads until there is no congestion?)
Phenomena can have more than 1 explanation. For example, from 1980 to 2010, the portion of people walking to work dropped by almost half: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/databook/travel-mode-shares-in-the-u-s/
If fewer people are walking, there are going to be fewer pedestrian fatalities. That doesn't mean it's safer to actually be a pedestrian!
This is how I would interpret the word, but dictionary.com is... ambiguous: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident
e.g. "chance; fortune; luck:"
I believe there is research to the effect that people sometimes interpret "accident" as meaning "no one's fault" although I can't find it now. It's certainly the case that we don't use the word "accident" for plane crashes, or probably for most cases where someone causes damage by breaking the law. (If I shoot a gun into the air, and the bullet hits something or someone, is that an accident?)
It's even gotten to the point where the word is sometimes used for intentional acts!
Most car crashes don't result in death or serious injury, so they wouldn't be "serious" crimes, but they might be somewhat more penalized than they currently are. As far as I know this is consistent with the law elsewhere--pushing someone is technically battery (though unlikely to be enforced), but if they fall back and crack their head open on the curb, it's manslaughter.
If you're analyzing things during COVID, you might want to consider that a high speed collision with an immovable object is a handy way to commit suicide without stigma.
We certainly use the word "accident" for plane crashes.
The attempts to move away from "accident" as the term for accidents are basically political, either for the perhaps laudable purpose of getting people to take them more seriously to reduce them, or the less laudable purpose of stigmatizing drivers.
That the NY Times erroneously uses the formula "leaving the scene of an accident" for leaving the scene of an intentional act does not mean "accident" is not used correctly elsewhere; the actual statute the NY Times (VTL 600) is referring to is worded "leaving the scene of an incident".
This is not true in either case. Pushing someone through accident or negligence or even recklessness is not battery; battery is an intentional act. If they fall and crack their head open on the curb, it is only manslaughter if it was at least reckless (or in some states criminally negligent, which as I noted earlier is a higher standard than ordinary negligence).
Ok, it does exist. I think "plane crash" is a far more common term than "aviation accident" whereas car accident is much more common than car crash. Google trends showed similar results.
As far as I can tell, it's mostly lawyers (because insurance companies use the word "accident" to imply their client is not at fault, hey would you look at that) and people who study traffic safety and have found that a substantial portion of the population does think that most car crashes aren't preventable.
I think it's more likely that they just defaulted to "car accident" because it's so ingrained that's what we call car crashes.
Speeding, tailgating, changing lanes without sufficient space, etc. are also typically intentional acts. I'm not a lawyer but a traffic violation resulting in death is literally the example of manslaughter on the wiki page. d
Intending to commit a traffic offense (which generally doesn't matter, as they are strict liability anyway) is not intent to do harm. There are cases where such intent transfers (as in the felony murder rule), but they are exceptions.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In this case Wikipedia cites a case called "DPP v. Newbury" in support of the claim that failing to stop for a traffic light and hitting a pedestrian is manslaughter. First of all, this is an Australian case. Second, it does not concern a traffic accident but rather two boys who pushed a stone off a bridge as a train approached.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link