Seattle Bubble

Besides...

Maybe if more people were killed outright in auto accidents, our health insurance rates would be lower.

My niece was in a serious accident that shattered her hip, put her in the ICU for weeks and she will have a limp the rest of her life, driving a 1990's car (a Hyundai as it happens).

If she had just died like in the old days, the premiums wouldn't be going up for everyone insured through her company, correct?

Plus there is no guarantee she will go on to be a useful member of society anyway, so what was the point in trying to save her?

But then, I believe in true personal responsibility, which most people don't want to accept.

It's her own fault for getting in the accident in the first place.

I was just pointing out the fact that driving an older car with more steel does not make one any safer. It's all the other cars on the road that are designed to absorb the energy of a collision that are making you safe. By driving an older car you are just electing to hand over responsibility for your personal safety to whoever you happen to get into a collision with.

Not at all. I believe in personal responsibility. If I get into a wreck in an old car, it's my fault for getting into the wreck. If I choose to be on that street at that time of day with an idiot who causes an accident, it's my fault. I haven't turned over responsibility to anyone. I choose to drive the car that I want to drive, regardless of what the other people are driving. If I get killed, it's my fault. if they get killed, it's their fault. Even if I cause the accident, it's still their fault for getting killed and not mine. They could have elected to stay home that day, left 15 minutes later or earlier, etc.

True personal responsibility means it's never someone else's fault. Most people cannot handle that concept.

It's like the people killed on 9/11. As far as I am concerned, each of those people chose to be on that plane, in that building, etc. on that day. Had they not chosen to be there, they would be alive today. Their fault, and no one else's.

Therefore, I am not giving responsibility to anyone else. I am taking responsibility by driving the car I feel safest in and enjoy the most and if I get killed, it's my own fault.

How is that not taking true responsibility for your life and living with those choices?

Well, then if I run into someone while sending text messages on the freeway - I seriously hope it is you.

I believe in personal responsibility but that statement makes no sense.

It would be my fault for being on the freeway when an idiot like yourself was text messaging. If I wasn't on the freeway, I wouldn't have been sideswiped by you. How can it possibly be your fault that I was on the freeway?

You didn't control my actions, only I controlled my actions. I elected to get on the freeway, therefore it's my fault.

I could have stayed on the side roads and not gotten on the freeway. I could have stayed home and not gone anywhere. I, by my own free will, elected to get on the freeway and, as a result, I ended up in an accident with someone.

Did I make the decision to be on the freeway at that time?

If so, then it has to be my fault.

Like I said, most people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and instead look for someone else to blame.

Most people don't want to face true personal responsibility and you are an example of that. True personal responsibility means you only have yourself to blame for anything, good or bad, that happens in your life.

PublicEnemy#1, you certainly have an interesting perspective. However, don't you think it reasonable that people driving on the freeway have the right to expect other drivers to not be doing stupid / dangerous things, threatening their safety? Isn't that what traffic laws are all about?

Make no mistake, traffic laws are about REVENUE, not safety. Safety could easily be addressed without the penalties (e.g. laws). I just read about Wash. DC traffic cameras and radar traps being pinpointed on GPS and fed to I-phone App users. Does this information increase safety? Certainly, as drivers that might otherwise speed will slow down with the knowledge that someone is watching them. So, the end result of showing people where the traps are keeps people safer. Guess who doesn't like the app?

The chief of police...

If the chief was truly interested in safety, then they wouldn't have a problem with this app, but the chief is only interested in the loss of revenue, which is very lucrative.

I personally don't think insurance should be required on cars that are wholly owned by an individual because you are forcing the legal owner to pay for something they may be willing to gamble on. Yet it is masked in the guide of "the greater good" and everyone gets stuck paying for other's mistakes (hmm.. housing mess anyone?).

If I own a home outright, I am not required to carry insurance on that home. I could have a pool that some idiot could fall into, but I am not required to have homeowner's insurance. So why should I be required to have auto insurance if I own the car outright?

But to address your question, do I have the "right" to expect others not to be stupid? I don't have that "right" with anything else, why should I have that "right" for public roads?

People do stupid things all the time, whether they are driving or otherwise. It's up to me to judge their stupidity and take appropriate actions to keep from ending up in a situation I will regret.

I assume people will do stupid things on the road and constantly watch for them to do it. But if I get in an accident, it's still going to be my fault for being on the road at that time.

Dude, that is noone's definition of personal responsibility. But then you are publicenemy. What should I expect.

By your definition are people at fault if they get random cancer, or if their child dies in a car accident? How about if you get some bad Tylenol? your problem?

go ahead and dig the hole

By his definition it is his fault if I break into his house, steal all of his valuables, tie him to a chair in the front lawn, and burn down the house in front of him.

You can't possibly say older cars are safer it's a stupid argument that I have withe people all to often.

Accident avoidance is much more critical that accident survival.

If you can avoid an accident you will always survive unscathed right?

So if my car can go 60-0 40 before yours that makes my car incredibly safer.

If the suspension and steering system is much more responsive I can swerve to avoid it better right?

If my ABS kicks in to keep me from going into a flat out skid I well have better control of my vehicle.

If the traction control keeps me from bucking the back end into a telephone pole I will be in better shape right? (then again I only see the "trac nanny" when I am driving like an idiot.


So you may be surrounded in a throne of steel, but have you priced what good steel reworking costs these days? I know a guy who does a ton of it, and its much more expensive than bolting on a new part.

Cancer? Why wouldn't that be my fault? My genes, my body, my exposure to bad things, etc. Who else are you going to blame?

My kid dies in a car accident? If the child is a minor, they I would say it's my fault for putting them in danger as their guardian. If they are an adult, it's their fault for getting killed.

Tylenol??? Are you serious? Of course, it's my fault for taking a bottle that was tainted. I had complete freedom to NOT grab the tainted bottle. Correct me if I am wrong, but every one of those people in the cases you are referring to CHOSE to grab that bottle and take the pills inside. They put too much trust in the company, the drug store, etc.

They took a chance that the pills would be safe and untainted. They weren't, but it is ultimately their fault for buying that particular bottle and taking the pills.

Why is this so difficult to understand? The problem is, no one wants to take responsibility for what happens in their life. It's always someone else's fault. How can it ever be someone else's fault in a free society?



Yep, because I relied on the police, an alarm system, etc. to protect myself, when the only person I could, and should, rely on is myself. If you had attempted it, I would have taken the appropriate steps to prevent your invasion.

Had I been unsuccessful I really only have myself to blame. Why? Because I could have not been sleeping in my house that night, I could have elected to have a large dog, a 12 gauge under the bed, etc. etc. If I failed to adequately prepare myself for just such an eventuality, I really only have myself to blame.

Isn't it interesting that so many here are advocating that the government shouldn't bail out irresponsible homeowners, but when push comes to shove, they don't really want to take full responsibility for their own actions and decisions, either.

Perhaps I can explain it this way:

Every day we all take thousands of risks. We assess the level of risk that each thing we do possesses. Driving a car to work has a certain level of risk associated with it. Sleeping in your home at night has a certain level of risk. Buying food that you didn't grow yourself has a certain level of risk. We assess the risk and take appropriate action based on that. Some people are terrified of flying. They perceive the risk to be too great. Some think riding a bike in the middle of the city is too great a risk. But at the end of the day, each of you have made decisions based upon the risk factors involved. It's no different than playing the odds in gambling. You drive a car to work because you believe the risk is slight enough that it is worth it for the money you make by taking the risk. At the end of the day though, you made EVERY SINGLE DECISION in your life. If you make the right decisions, you live to see another day. If you don't, then you might end up dead.

But each and every decision you made was made knowing the risk factors involved. If you make all the decisions, they why shouldn't you be responsible for all the consequences, good AND bad?

I am not saying people are above the law, only that if you took the risk, you have to be willing to live with the consequences. If you are afraid of being hurt in a bank robbery, then don't go to a bank. If you never go near a bank, the chances of being hurt in a bank robbery are far less likely than if you do. People take the risks associated with bank robberies when doing business at banks because the risks are relatively low. They assess the risk and choose to take it. But, if you assess that risk wrong on the day the bank gets robbed, whose fault is it if you end up dead? You made the conscious choice to go into that particular bank on that particular day, right? So, again, whose fault is it?

If you weren't there on that day, you would not have gotten shot. So, again, how can it be anyone's fault but your own?

I completely agree. Accident avoidance is what I do every day. I never rely on the car to keep me safe, I rely on my skills in paying attention to potential accidents, always looking for a safe way out, not getting boxed in, looking for stupidity on the roads, etc. You, unfortunately, want to rely on the car to save you. I would prefer not to trust my life to all those systems working properly.

If you drive safely, then it matters not one bit what type of car you drive. If I never have to use the ABS systems, the airbags, the traction control, etc. because I drive safer than everyone else and I always assume the other drivers will do something stupid, then why, exactly, do I need them?

Those safety items are only there to protect the stupid. The safe drivers never need them.

Ok, I'll let you get back to smelling your own farts.

Resorting to personal insults is rather infantile, don't you think? And certainly indicative of someone who has been bested in an debate.

Thanks for playing.

Yup you got me.