undefined

[-]

Hard yes; I do absolutely do not want to live in a society that is held together with cameras instead of people. By all means please enforce the law, but it should be done by people in a court, not by some auto-citation by mail.

[-]

The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.

by cromka6 hours ago|

[-]

No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

[-]

> No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more!

It's literally not.

> Belgium 7.3

> Slovenia 7.0

> US 6.9

> France 5.8

Never mind all the other countries that do have presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-mile road deaths.

And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse.

Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-correlated with safety.

by crote6 hours ago|

[-]

You are conveniently leaving out some European countries, such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km.

You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe as a while being at 6.7.

So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is arguable.

by LorenPechtel12 minutes ago|

[-]

The problem with both of these numbers is that they are highly sensitive to how (city/suburban/rural, freeway/highway/byway) people drive.

[-]

I haven't conveniently left out anything. I wrote my previous comments intentionally, and specified which statistic I was talking about. If you misread it, that's on you.

I used this statistic because yours is like saying the US is richer than Switzerland, if you don't divide by the number of people. Pretty irrelevant.

There is no point comparing a country that drives everywhere with a country that doesn't using a metric that doesn't account for this difference.

by Symbiote4 hours ago|

[-]

You named the two European countries higher than the USA, and ignored the 12 that are lower.

by 0x3f2 hours ago|

[-]

I presented the US' position in the list with the surrounding European countries, both higher and lower, to show that it sits in the cluster. It can be at the edge of the cluster, that's fine. The other person was claiming a 2-10x difference and, more importantly, blaming it on the 'havoc' that occurs without the presumption of guilt. The countries I listed have that presumption, and yet have comparable rates.

by antonvs3 hours ago|

[-]

> There is no point comparing a country that drives everywhere with a country that doesn't

Unless the argument is that driving everywhere is a stupid and irresponsible way to operate a society.

by 0x3f2 hours ago|

[-]

Perhaps but seems irrelevant to a discussion that's around the question of policy as it relates to people who are already driving.

by 6 hours ago|

[-]

deleted

by throwaheyy6 hours ago|

[-]

It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.

by arijun6 hours ago|

[-]

When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.

[-]

The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof.

Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't.

Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.

by elteto5 hours ago|