Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What I'm saying has nothing to do with fault.
Compare two cars crashing into each other with a car crashing into an SUV. Say head-on, but that doesn't matter to illustrate the point.
In the car vs. car scenario there is, say a 25% chance that each occupant dies. In car v. SUV, there's a 50% chance the car passenger dies, but a 20% change the SUV driver dies. So, the SUV driver is better off, himself, because he's reduced his chance of dying in a crash. But, overall, the chances of death (or the overall death rate of crashes) has gone up from 25% to 35%. So, society is worse off.
Introducing fault into the issue gets you nowhere. I'm pretty sure you'll have a tough time finding any studies suggesting at-fault drivers are more (or less) likely to suffer injury or be killed in a crash. (I'd gues they're more likely to be killed, because they aren't around to tell their side of the story, so the blame gets pinned on them).
|
So an SUV is safer in a collision... and that's why it's bad. Were SUVs suddently banned, your argument could be applied in favor of banning larger cars, since a Cadillac Driver is more likely to kill someone in a collision than a subcompact driver (particularly where those two vehicles are the ones colliding). Are you suggesting people not be allowed to improve their own chances of surviving a collision by purchasing a bigger vehicle? What about heavier cars?
If I follow your logic, the marketplace ought to be geared so that people would all drive the same sized car. Doesn't your position necessarily invoke the argument that people should all have the exact same chance of walking away from an accident?
