Leaving Kids In Cars To Die

[El Barto]

I would be surprised if excessive speed wasn't a solid contributor. Mind you, that includes driving 50mph on an icy road.

It was 4th. Keep in mind that following too close was also a given cause, which is going to trump most of the speeding accidents.

[rumborak]

Either way, to return from the tangent, it is clear that car/mechanical failure is a looong way down, with the top 10 spots occupied by driver error.
I mean, look at it, trains and airplanes are 95% automated these days, and that's why they're so safe. Driving is by far the most dangerous mode of mass travel, and it's because it involves humans.
I am actually a bike rider for most things, and being exposed like that makes you keenly aware of how overtaxed a lot of drivers are with their task. It's a classic case of Illusory Superiority, because most people actually think they're good drivers, whereas in reality their lack of perception of the complexity at hand lures them into a false sense of security.

[Jaffa]

I mean, look at it, trains and airplanes are 95% automated these days, and that's why they're so safe. Driving is by far the most dangerous mode of mass travel, and it's because it involves humans.

These arguments are pretty thin, rumborak.  Cars ARE more dangerous than trains, but I don't see how you can pin that exclusively on the human element.  There are a lot of differences between trains and cars.  A train operates on a set schedule, and its movement is guided by the set path of its track.  With cars, there are a lot more variables.  Streets don't guide cars the way tracks guide trains.  Driving a car involves making constant decisions, whereas the decisions are boiled down to just a few when it comes to trains.  Not to mention the fact that trains don't have to deal with traffic the way cars do.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that a car on autopilot would be able to handle those variables any better than a human?

[El Barto]

While plane and train crashes are far fewer than car crashes, those are also predominately caused by human error, as well.

[orcus116]

I know the recent Metro North one last year was caused by human error.

[rumborak]

I mean, look at it, trains and airplanes are 95% automated these days, and that's why they're so safe. Driving is by far the most dangerous mode of mass travel, and it's because it involves humans.

These arguments are pretty thin, rumborak.  Cars ARE more dangerous than trains, but I don't see how you can pin that exclusively on the human element.  There are a lot of differences between trains and cars.  A train operates on a set schedule, and its movement is guided by the set path of its track.  With cars, there are a lot more variables.  Streets don't guide cars the way tracks guide trains.  Driving a car involves making constant decisions, whereas the decisions are boiled down to just a few when it comes to trains.  Not to mention the fact that trains don't have to deal with traffic the way cars do.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that a car on autopilot would be able to handle those variables any better than a human?

Well, by definition, i.e. through regulation, self-driving cars will have be to be better than the average driver to be licensed.

And yeah, as everybody pointed out above, essentially all remaining train and plane accidents are due to human error at this point. I take your point that driving a car is a far less predictable environment than driving a train or flying a plane, and that it obviously why the car is the last one to be automated, but I think it is without question that removing the human element will reduce accidents.

[Dublagent66]

There's no excuse for it.  I've heard stories about "the routine was different that day".  "The kids things in the trunk instead of inside the cab of the vehicle".  "I thought I already dropped them off".  Yeah right, nobody wants to hear it.  You're completely up your own ass and don't deserve to reproduce.  I feel sorry for those tortured kids.  Not the parent who did it.

[Jaffa]

Yeah, I definitely can't get on board with the 'everybody makes mistakes' excuse.  I mean, it's true - everybody does make mistakes.  But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.  And as far as consequences go, a dead child is pretty damn high on the list. 

[El Barto]

Yeah, I definitely can't get on board with the 'everybody makes mistakes' excuse.

I mean, it's true - everybody does make mistakes. 

I don't think anybody's saying that they shouldn't be held accountable. I'm just saying that it's not at all surprising that it happens 40 times a year and I see no reason for the venom about car companies activating some protection that is pretty much already in place anyway. Most people are saying it's bad because it resolves parents of responsibility which rates as one of the stupidest things I've heard so far this September (and I work with some real winners). The parents still go to jail and still have deal with having cooked their kids.

[rumborak]

I feel zero desire to dish out venom against people who probably will never have a happy moment afterwards.

[Jaffa]

There's a difference between dishing out venom and acknowledging fault.  I would be perfectly happy to let these types of incidents pass without any media coverage or public outrage, because I do feel very badly for the parents in these situations, and I don't think demonizing them helps anyone. 

But that doesn't change the fact that it is their fault.  I don't say that with hatred or outrage in my heart; I say it merely to acknowledge the reality of the situation. 

[rumborak]

You shouldn't confuse desperate attempts to deal with the guilt with attempts to convince others that it wasn't their fault. Those people know damn well they and only they killed their own kid.

[Jaffa]

Sure, I understand that.  And to be honest, I would never have this conversation with a parent who had actually had this happen with their kid.  If one of them wanted to talk to me about it, I would shut the hell up and let them say whatever they needed to say.

[bout to crash]

Yeah, totally agree with you there. I do pretty much think it's inexcusable, but I would never say that to someone who did it. No good would come out of that.

And yeah, as everybody pointed out above, essentially all remaining train and plane accidents are due to human error at this point. I take your point that driving a car is a far less predictable environment than driving a train or flying a plane, and that it obviously why the car is the last one to be automated, but I think it is without question that removing the human element will reduce accidents.

Call me old-fashioned, but i find the idea of a world where everything is fucking automated to be very scary and sad. Do we really need to invent more ways to try and prevent mortal people from dying? Let's just make everything sterile and safe and take all the fucking living out of life. I dunno. The more time passes the more I feel like I'm in a Ray Bradbury story. More and more technology is developed to make the world "better" and "easier" and maybe this is cynical, but the future doesn't really look like one I want to be in.

/tangent.

In other news, illusory superiority is definitely a very real thing in driving, but I happen to know I'm a better driver than most 

[Dr. DTVT]

I feel zero desire to dish out venom against people who probably will never have a happy moment afterwards.

Exactly.  They know what they did.  They want to prevent it to happening to someone else, they aren't looking for an excuse.  The at fault parent needs the love and support of others, not the condescending stares of people vilifying them.

I think it is funny that the most compassionate people in this thread are probably also the least religious people in this thread.  Nice to see us heathens "Love thy neighbor."

[Tick]

I feel zero desire to dish out venom against people who probably will never have a happy moment afterwards.

Exactly.  They know what they did.  They want to prevent it to happening to someone else, they aren't looking for an excuse.  The at fault parent needs the love and support of others, not the condescending stares of people vilifying them.

I think it is funny that the most compassionate people in this thread are probably also the least religious people in this thread.  Nice to see us heathens "Love thy neighbor."

You are right, doc. I have a hard time with this issue because it seems inexcusable, but compassion is a good thing. I am the one with the wrong attitude about this. For that I am sorry. I'm am a person of many flaws and I need to remember that. I guess I'll leave it there.

[rumborak]

I feel zero desire to dish out venom against people who probably will never have a happy moment afterwards.

Exactly.  They know what they did.  They want to prevent it to happening to someone else, they aren't looking for an excuse.  The at fault parent needs the love and support of others, not the condescending stares of people vilifying them.

I think it is funny that the most compassionate people in this thread are probably also the least religious people in this thread.  Nice to see us heathens "Love thy neighbor."

Religion, or lack thereof, doesn't make people compassionate. People are compassionate on their own, or they're not. Which is of course why the "without religion people will be immoral" argument is so bogus.

[Tick]

I feel zero desire to dish out venom against people who probably will never have a happy moment afterwards.

Exactly.  They know what they did.  They want to prevent it to happening to someone else, they aren't looking for an excuse.  The at fault parent needs the love and support of others, not the condescending stares of people vilifying them.

I think it is funny that the most compassionate people in this thread are probably also the least religious people in this thread.  Nice to see us heathens "Love thy neighbor."

Religion, or lack thereof, doesn't make people compassionate. People are compassionate on their own, or they're not. Which is of course why the "without religion people will be immoral" argument is so bogus.

Nah, you can't make blanket statements like that. People can change and for some its the result of finding the presence of God in there life. Some people find God and just become a hypocrite. Everyone is different.

[rumborak]

Many studies have been done, and none have found a noticeable difference in terms of compassion or empathy between religious and non-religious folks. There are of course many stories of people turning their life around after they found God, but there's equally as many on the other side who turned their life around after counseling. In reality, and this has been shown many times, the main reason people turned their life around is because they found a support network that helped them, be that in their church, or in regular meetings elsewhere. That's why AA works; not because it is loosely tied to a deity.

[Tick]

Many studies have been done, and none have found a noticeable difference in terms of compassion or empathy between religious and non-religious folks. There are of course many stories of people turning their life around after they found God, but there's equally as many on the other side who turned their life around after counseling. In reality, and this has been shown many times, the main reason people turned their life around is because they found a support network that helped them, be that in their church, or in regular meetings elsewhere. That's why AA works; not because it is loosely tied to a deity.

True. Not going to argue with that. Many things can see a person change.