Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured or killed in a car accident.

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being sued for damages caused by a car accident.



sort by: page size:

You added the "at risk" part, not me! :)

Your version applies to cars too! By driving a car, you are at risk of causing a car crash!


When you drive a car, you are taking a chance that you will cause an accident that kills another person

Do you dispute that getting into a car is a gateway to car accidents?

That's your justification for why I should feel safe getting into anyone's car? "Because I already face at least one risk, what's more risk?"

> You're not likely to die in a car crash if you don't drive a car.

Unless you're collateral damage.


I think they mean risk of injury to the driver.

driving a car does not, by itself, cause car accidents

No, the health liability is a risk of car operation. Accidents happen, and they injure people, even in the absence of negligence or poor maintenance. Driving creates a risk of injury to others, inherently.

Great point. Out of curiosity, what happened in the accident that the driver was comfortable inviting you into his car? In many environments/scenarios that would seem risky, particularly after a traumatic event like a car accident.

I think you should take a step back and think about what you're saying.

A car can kill people. A car can create a large amount of property damage if it is driven carelessly. Cars can even, in extreme circumstances, be fire and chemical hazards.

Are you really sure driving doesn't include a massive amount of risk to yourself and others compared to walking period?


The free preview of your citation seems to propose legal liability for drivers of vehicles that cause outsize risk to others.

Safety equipment inside cars does the same -- people who feel more safe in their car drive more dangerously and take more risks. Maybe that's addressed in the full article.


the probability of this affecting you if you're not a criminal is probably lower to that of you dying everytime you take your car to go anywhere. It's a really big sacrifice in expected utility.

Cars are risk adverse for a reason: people's lives are at stake.

There is a categorical difference in how a person could die because he crashes his own car into a tree and another one shooting at other people. Car deaths are terrible, and many are involuntary (someone killing someone else), but many are self inflicted and the driver is reasonably assuming that risk. The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. Its not a risk for a person to assume.

> [...] and even include things unrelated to the car itself, such as potential damage to pedestrians.

Why is that unrelated to the car? People are people and worth protecting, no matter whether they sit in the car or outside.


These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive.

Just because driving a car isn’t risk free doesn’t mean you outlaw cars. You take the sensible precautions that are available and accept that a life worth living involves a certain amount of risk.

I know several people who have been injured in car accidents through no fault of their own (While being in a car). Wouldn't you want a method of transportation which is safe for you?

If you get in a car accident, no one counts your car as a victim. This is the same thing.
next

Legal | privacy