It’s very true that the “brakes” don’t make you go any faster.
Cory, this could be a brake out hit --might go viral…
You make many excellent points, and I don’t particularly dispute them.
Is there a difference between casually transmitted diseases and actively transmitted diseases? Measles is really easy to catch, so I hear- there’s not a lot an individual can do to avoid it, behaviorally (aside from vaccination). HIV is not as easy to get- you avoid certain behaviors, and you’re very unlikely to get it. There are a lot of diseases which fall somewhere in between- tuberculosis, flu.
Somewhere in there, I think, is a reasonable cost-benefit optimized middle ground that most people can support.
From another angle, if your failure to vaccinate against measles results in someone else’s death from measles, to what degree are you liable? It’s not unlike a DUI vehicular manslaughter, I think. You allowed your body to become a vector for a disease that harmed others- and you could have prevented it.
no, this is about ethics in . . . wait.
The AA here offers Defensive Driving courses… the underlying principle is that 50% of people on the roads are below-average drivers, so learn to prepare yourself for aggressive incompetence.
… that this post is about automobile brakes.
It was only a modest proposal
The most efficient car on the road is the one without brakes.
When I started riding a motorcycle, a reformed Hells Angel (well, he said he was reformed…) taught me defensive riding. I never liked to tell people about this in case I had an accident…but twelve years later, when I gave up bikes for cars because the family arrived, I had never had a serious accident. (I don’t count coming off when a truck dumped oil all over the road on a bend - even then I had my straight line exit from the bend secured, so I just slid into a ditch.)
I recommend it.
This is stupid. I have brakes, and I’ve never been in a car accident.
This is exactly what I personally find wrong with many libertarian arguments.
I trust powerful people just about as far as I can throw them.
I can’t throw the board of directors of some corporation very far. But by voting, I can actually throw politicians out of office.
If the government took away our brakes then only criminals would have them! Excuse me, what were we talking about?
You don’t have to wonder about some hypothetical future vaccince. Current vaccines are dangerous. Every year some known proportion of vaccine recipients will have an adverse reaction, up to and including death.
The thing is, though, that the proportion of severe reactions is tiny. Real, but tiny. Astonishingly tiny. Far FAR smaller than the proportion who would die or be left crippled by the uncontrolled spread of - say - measles. But still real.
And yet you seem to agree that MMR, for example, should be mandated. Therefore, as Churchill noted, we already know what kind of woman you are. Now we are merely haggling over the price.
Aside from that not being a Churchill quote, comparing explicitly nuanced support for a public health mandate to whoring is disingenuous and extremely provocative.
Clearly this means we need more zombies in politics.
Usually these metaphors break down fairly quickly, but this holds strong all the way through. It’s a really potent analogy, and one that I can see myself using IRL.
What a load of crap. There were brakes for carts, carriages and bicycles long before the automobile was invented, and brakes were adapted for the auto almost immediately. Your premise is simply false.
All the careful driving in the world won’t help you when a child darts out in front of your car, and you won’t be able to stop in time. And you can explain your crackpot theories of brakeless cars to the parents. I’m sure they’ll be understanding. Their child is dead, but at least your rotors aren’t warped.
I have to admit, the comments by people who don’t get the joke are much funnier than the joke itself.
But the requirement for brakes is made by the owner of the roadway–the government.