[QatzelOk]

deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property

The only "out" I can see here for automobilists is that the extreme damage they do isn't deliberate.

"I didn't know this caused global warming, prevented kids from running freely, and choked off public space. I had no idea these things were happening."

If I was a driver, I'd go with the "brain damaged" defense. There's nothing else.

[Evilive]

I was driving from books-a-million the other night and had to swerve to miss a biker, I made sure to not even come close to him out of fear of having a windshield wiper torn off, or worse.

[tallpaul]

and automobile accidents are frequent occurrences that only mask that frequency of closely lethal events. A vehicle is massively lethal, tallpaul.

Frequent? Compared to what?

While accidents do occur, the vast majority of people drive every day and may go a lifetime (years at least) without being involved in an accident.

[Oxymoron]

"I didn't know this caused global warming, prevented kids from running freely, and choked off public space. I had no idea these things were happening."

Kids shouldnt be running around freely.

[guzzipat]

I had a neighbour deliberately damage my motorcycle once. Someone poured a tin of paint stipper over his car a couple of days later.

[Zyx]

While accidents do occur, the vast majority of people drive every day and may go a lifetime (years at least) without being involved in an accident.

One person dead from an automobile accident affects families. The vehicular accident in my family devastated us, especially the victim who bears the injuries to this day. Furthermore, it's a restriction onto others that does not necessarily involve taking precautions but fearing the titans that some may irresponsibly wield. Besides from that, ecological damages are unarguable. Cars may be required to feed urban life, but this whole commuter life and reckless driving is a destructive privilege to say the least: public transportation is ecologically more efficient, safe, and can replace attending to transportation needs and the same can be said on biking and allowing for 'shopping carts' to be wheeled to households.

I can see why someone would not want to effect 'lynch laws' or, to its credit, a drastically more minute version of it, but as per defending cars on the basis that 'few' die (as if society were about having calculated innocent casualties) even though many suffer is abominable and intellectually insensitive: the girl who, likely, had her legs crushed by a car while riding her bike is probably in a wheel chair or suffering prosthetic for the rest of her life and her family may bicker around it to hide that they are ashamed of the society that allows this to happen.

Kids shouldnt be running around freely.

Next you'll say that it's a child's fault for being caught in the pellets of a drive-by as it was playing outside despite the security risk? Honestly, a child should not live in fear or be restricted by lethal negligence on the part of adults. As a society, lethal negligence should be sought to be minimized and especially so much for children. I can see how some many affect that a child's freedoms are negligible, but if our society is true to many arguments--stretching from the effects of terrorists to vehicular homicide--it should at least acknowledge that a free child is a component of a better society.

[tallpaul]

The only "out" I can see here for automobilists is that the extreme damage they do isn't deliberate.

Extreme damage to what?

[tallpaul]

One person dead from an automobile accident affects families.

No argument there.

The vehicular accident in my family devastated us, especially the victim who bears the injuries to this day.

I'm sorry for your family's loss.

My intention was not to trivialize automobile accidents. I was arguing with the following:

and automobile accidents are frequent occurrences that only mask that frequency of closely lethal events

They are "frequent" by some standards. However, by comparison to all the mikes driven with no accident, they are quite infrequent.

Do you suggest that because automobiles cause problems for some people, everyone should walk, ride a bicycle, or ride a horse?

[Adrien]

Do not double post, that's what the Edit button is for.

[Zyx]

They are "frequent" by some standards. However, by comparison to all the mikes driven with no accident, they are quite infrequent.

Admittedly, on the statistics, I previously testified according to faith. I can imagine that you argued similarly. Given that, I answered the call that you were making; to back up the information despite your lack of doing so. It was a task, but here is what I found:

Post-traumatic Stress Reactions Following Motor Vehicle Accidents

DENNIS J. BUTLER, PH.D., and H. STEVEN MOFFIC, M.D.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NICK W. TURKAL, M.D.
University of Wisconsin Medical School
Madison, Wisconsin


A patient information handout on post-traumatic stress after traffic accidents, written by the authors of this article, is provided on page 531.

Despite improvements in road conditions, vehicle safety and driver education, over 3 million persons are injured in motor vehicle accidents each year. Many of these persons develop post-traumatic stress symptoms that can become chronic. Patients with post-traumatic stress disorder experience disabling memories and anxiety related to the traumatic event. Early identification of these patients is critical to allow for intervention and prevent greater impairment and restriction. The family physician is in an ideal position to identify, treat or refer patients with traumatic responses to traffic accidents. The physician's awareness of patient characteristics and pre-accident functioning allows him or her to critically evaluate symptoms that may begin to interfere with the resumption of daily activities. (Am Fam Physician 1999;60:524-31.)

Most Americans will be involved in a motor vehicle accident in their lifetime, and one quarter of the population will be involved in accidents that result in serious injuries.1 Annually, more than 3.5 million persons in the United States are injured in a motor vehicle accident, and nearly 42,000 die as a result of their injuries.2

Vehicular accidents sometimes lead to post-traumatic stress symptoms.3-9 Traffic accidents have become the leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since the Vietnam war.10 It is estimated that 9 percent of survivors of serious accidents develop significant post-traumatic stress symptoms1 and that many other survivors have PTSD-like reactions.

Continued.

Please remember that the effect on individuals is not the only worrying effect and that air pollution is a cause for concern, but as to 'infrequency,' not only is over 1% of the population each year "frequent" but "most Americans" is as well.

Another site says that vehicular homicide is the more common than all other forms of homicide combined.

Do you suggest that because automobiles cause problems for some people, everyone should walk, ride a bicycle, or ride a horse?

No. Traveling on the road from state to state, I noticed a lot of trucks. Trucks likely bringing the necessary nourishment for urban life. Furthermore, trains and buses, which are improving to be ecologically negligent, are arguably 'safe' (especially if less cars were around) and facilitating for our lifestyles.

Horses, I hear, crap too much, but walking, strollers, and bikes should compliment ecological buses and trains, ideally. I have not done much "research" besides from bias bus and train advertising suggesting that they were ecological, though. I am apt to change, but so many personal cars--as a dangerous factor to individuals, families, and society--are, so far, out of the question. The convenience of attending a restaurant in a closed, secluded vehicle doesn't match up with subordinating a child to a wheelchair until he dies an early death from alcoholism, I am afraid.

[tallpaul]

but as to 'infrequency,' not only is over 1% of the population each year "frequent" but "most Americans" is as well.

How is 1% a year "most americans"?

[Zyx]

"Most Americans" was a synecdoche for "Most Americans . . . in their lifetimes" as from the third paragraph that I cited.

Also, 1% a year is a lot, you know? Given that people live for some seventy years . . ..

[tallpaul]

Also, 1% a year is a lot, you know? Given that people live for some seventy years . . ..

Umm... how old were you when you started driving?

Did your grandparents drive until they died?

Also, bear in mind that many accidents involve property damage only.

quoting your citation:

3 million persons are injured in motor vehicle accidents each year.

What is the threshold of "injury" here? Skinned knee? Sprained ankle? Whiplash?

Many of these persons develop post-traumatic stress symptoms that can become chronic.

Many? How many?

Let's look at the extreme end of the scale, where someone actually dies. If we have 60,000 automobile fatalities a year out of 300 million people, that is 0.02%, or two hundredths of a percent.

Things happen in life that are traumatic. I don't think we do the human race any favors to attempt to engineer such things out of society.

[Zyx]

tallpaul, you certainly are adamant. I suppose that the property damage bit is relevant, but your injury objection is flatly stupid. "Sprained ankle?" I mean, yes, that is possible, but if you honestly think that 'motor vehicle accident' really means 'skinned knee' then you misunderstand what a motor vehicle is. "Skinned knee" is called fortunate when something of that weight sends someone to a hospital.

Let's look at the extreme end of the scale, where someone actually dies.

Why? First off, the most likely fatality involves automobiles and yet for the other sources of fatalities are each more broadly cautioned. In fact, we charged to Iraq because ~3,000 people died seven years ago and it costs us billions upon billions of dollars to do so; but, 60,000 people died each year which is about 420,000 over seven years, and you seem to think that no precaution against future deaths should be taken. You think that "to attempt to engineer such things out of society" is unfavorable to humanity. Come on! You do not need to say that your initial conception was wrong, you can consider the viewpoints that you encounter and not be so staunchly set. You've come to the point where you started belittling trauma--that's insane!

Automobiles are the biggest killers, yet you'd sooner lock your doors at night then take a car off the road. Where is your logic?

Society should try to protect its people, and 420,000 dead in seven years is a lot of people that should have been protected--that's yours and my family members young and old--it's not a problem that society should see and think that doing nothing is for people's goods. Lives are not that fickle, tallpaul.

[tallpaul]

tallpaul, you certainly are adamant. I suppose that the property damage bit is relevant, but your injury objection is flatly stupid. "Sprained ankle?" I mean, yes, that is possible, but if you honestly think that 'motor vehicle accident' really means 'skinned knee' then you misunderstand what a motor vehicle is. "Skinned knee" is called fortunate when something of that weight sends someone to a hospital.

I believe it said "injuries". Did it say "injuries requiring hospitalization", or "injuries requiring a visit to the emergency room"?

I know full well what a motor vehicle is, thank you. Skinned knee might indeed be fortunate, but it is also an "injury".

So how many of the "injuries" in the report you're citing actually required hospital treatment? I asked a question along these lines in an earlier post, which you have so far ignored. Here it is, to save you the trouble of finding it:

What is the threshold of "injury" here? Skinned knee? Sprained ankle? Whiplash?

In fact, we charged to Iraq because ~3,000 people died seven years ago and it costs us billions upon billions of dollars to do so; but, 60,000 people died each year which is about 420,000 over seven years, and you seem to think that no precaution against future deaths should be taken.

Did I say that? When?

Come on! You do not need to say that your initial conception was wrong, you can consider the viewpoints that you encounter and not be so staunchly set. You've come to the point where you started belittling trauma--that's insane!

It's pretty insane to wildly misrepresent what people post. When did I "belittle" trauma?

Automobiles are the biggest killers, yet you'd sooner lock your doors at night then take a car off the road. Where is your logic?

What "logic" says that removing cars from the road is the only solution? You're starting to look like a bit of a zealot.

Society should try to protect its people, and 420,000 dead in seven years is a lot of people that should have been protected

Yup, none of those people possibly made their own trouble. Not a drunk driver or otherwise reckless driver among them. We have to protect everyone from themselves!

Lives are not that fickle, tallpaul.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

fick⋅le –adjective
1. likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable: fickle weather.
2. not constant or loyal in affections: a fickle lover.

[Zyx]

So how many of the "injuries" in the report you're citing actually required hospital treatment? I asked a question along these lines in an earlier post, which you have so far ignored. Here it is, to save you the trouble of finding it:

I can not tell you, but it's not a biased source if that is what you are implying. I searched the U.S. government for that: I do doubt that those sort of light injuries would be included in this study. I can not tell you though because this information is hard to come by. You should probably consult the references if it bothers you, and I respect the objection even though it is not really relevant.

Did I say that? When?

I don't think we do the human race any favors to attempt to engineer such things out of society.

If we have 60,000 automobile fatalities a year out of 300 million people, that is 0.02%, or two hundredths of a percent.

You are certainly implying that trauma and the amount of casualties are insignificant and not worth an effort of precaution.

When did I "belittle" trauma?

Read above.

What "logic" says that removing cars from the road is the only solution? You're starting to look like a bit of a zealot.

None, but you're saying that there ought to be no solution when you say that it is unfavorable to engineer vehicular homicide out of society.

Yup, none of those people possibly made their own trouble. Not a drunk driver or otherwise reckless driver among them. We have to protect everyone from themselves!

They likely were intoxicated--but they also kill/hurt innocent people. Furthermore, I do not think that it's wise to condemn someone to death for their learned silliness.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Apologies--I am terribly hungry. I thought fickle meant insignificant--I forget the word that I was thinking of but it's not feeble. Oh well . . .. Apologies.

[tallpaul]

You should probably consult the references if it bothers you, and I respect the objection even though it is not really relevant.

Not relevant? How is the threshold of injuries included in the statistic you quoted "not relevant"? If a cut requiring only a band-aid counts as an "injury", I think it is quite relevant!

You are certainly implying that trauma and the amount of casualties are insignificant and not worth an effort of precaution.

No, you are implying that you are a mind reader. Without being inside my head, how do you know what I am implying?

You are CHOOSING to INFER certain things from what I wrote.

When did I "belittle" trauma?

Read above.

Again, this is a matter of your chosen interpretation of my words, not the words that I posted.

None, but you're saying that there ought to be no solution when you say that it is unfavorable to engineer vehicular homicide out of society.

And again, you are lying through your teeth to claim that I said such a thing. You took a general statement that I made, and twisted it to apply to a specific thing.

Furthermore, I do not think that it's wise to condemn someone to death for their learned silliness

We are not doing that. The person is doing it to their self.
Right, let's protect "learned silliness", especially the kind that injures people! We need more of that, right?

[Zyx]

Not relevant? How is the threshold of injuries included in the statistic you quoted "not relevant"? If a cut requiring only a band-aid counts as an "injury", I think it is quite relevant!

Hardly anyone reports a minor injury as an automobile accident is why. It plainly doesn't have any research value and it was likely either disqualified in the preliminaries of research or too insignificant to matter. It turns out that that article dealt with 'serious injuries' and so it's likely to consider that all of the injuries were 'serious' but really you're quibbling over the fine detail as if lawyers did research. It's an interesting point, but it's sort of counter 'common-sense:' the research would not matter if it covered a significant amount of minor injuries. "Scratches" are likely not even considered 'injuries' and I plainly do not think that it is common for a 'scratch' to be sustained from a car injury.

As to your 'interpretation' bit, how should I interpret what you wrote where you emphasize 0.02% or say, "I don't think we . . .?"

We are not doing that. The person is doing it to their self.

I guess that you just sit back as people become alcoholics or contemplate suicide? Fair enough.

[QatzelOk]

Let's look at the extreme end of the scale, where someone actually dies. If we have 60,000 automobile fatalities a year out of 300 million people, that is 0.02%, or two hundredths of a percent.

Things happen in life that are traumatic. I don't think we do the human race any favors to attempt to engineer such things out of society.

Where were you when the World Trade Center collapsed?

That was only 3000 people. An insignificant number. And yet millions are dying and in refugee camps.

The car kills 12 times this many Americans every year. So, as you say, so what. Why engineer WTC attacks out of society?

And Oxymoron says that children shouldn't run freely. I guess this is because they might get hit by a car, right, Oxy? So this is a very wise contribution to any discussion about cars and freedom. Fact is, you have to chose which one you want: cars or freedom. And children are the first ones to be imprisoned.

[Oxymoron]

And Oxymoron says that children shouldn't run freely. I guess this is because they might get hit by a car, right, Oxy? So this is a very wise contribution to any discussion about cars and freedom. Fact is, you have to chose which one you want: cars or freedom. And children are the first ones to be imprisoned.

Kids should run around freely in Parks under adul supervision, not on the street.