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).
|
Bruger,
If your position is that all drivers should have the same chance of walking away from a collision, and therefore, an SUV buyer should not be allowed to improve his chances by purchasing an SUV, why wouldn't we apply similar logic to health insurance, ownership of guns, etc...? You could take the "even playing field" argument into any arena. Also, I don't think driving's a right. It's a privilege granted by the state. You choose to avial yourself of it with all its risks, inclusing those occasioned by your selection of a smaller vehicle. Or is it a right? I honestly don't know...
Best,
SD
