Just like people dying in T-bone or head-on collisions. Not to mention rollovers and other crashes.
Each of them carries the chance of fatality.
It’s unpredictable, which is why we can’t eliminate fatalities entirely.
My most recent point is that even the fatalities from being rear-ended are significantly reduced from even 10-15 years ago. Making the small (but still too high) probability of a fatality from that type of crash, smaller (but still too high).
Therefore, the most likely outcome from such an incident would be the destruction of property, not loss of life.
Which is the original point I was being pedantic about. The original comment was that stopping and not driving wouldn’t kill anyone, and the reply that kicked off this insane tangent, was that the people behind might.
And I’m staying, no, they won’t die (it is statistically very unlikely).
Irs actually not dangerous in the same way driving blind is. I doubt you care about crumple
Zones.
In one situation you drive blindly into an accident… the other “well rear ending can sometimes be bad!!!”
It never is. The you’re wrong, crazy, and also stupid.
You’re entire argument is “driving blindly is safer than stopping blindly” it’s dumb. It’s a dumb argument. When is going ever safer than stopping lol? You are dumb.
They’ll survive. Their cars might not…
Nobody will die , so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Rear-ending someone at highway speed is pretty fucking dangerous to everyone involved
Is this the only argument?
Because while that’s dangerous, modern safety standards in vehicles mean the probability of mortality in these situations is substantially reduced.
My point is that people won’t die, not that it’s a good thing to do.
People die from being rear-ended or rear-ending someone all the time though
It happens, yes.
Just like people dying in T-bone or head-on collisions. Not to mention rollovers and other crashes.
Each of them carries the chance of fatality.
It’s unpredictable, which is why we can’t eliminate fatalities entirely.
My most recent point is that even the fatalities from being rear-ended are significantly reduced from even 10-15 years ago. Making the small (but still too high) probability of a fatality from that type of crash, smaller (but still too high).
Therefore, the most likely outcome from such an incident would be the destruction of property, not loss of life.
Which is the original point I was being pedantic about. The original comment was that stopping and not driving wouldn’t kill anyone, and the reply that kicked off this insane tangent, was that the people behind might.
And I’m staying, no, they won’t die (it is statistically very unlikely).
Edit to include original context:
Irs actually not dangerous in the same way driving blind is. I doubt you care about crumple Zones.
In one situation you drive blindly into an accident… the other “well rear ending can sometimes be bad!!!”
It never is. The you’re wrong, crazy, and also stupid.
You’re entire argument is “driving blindly is safer than stopping blindly” it’s dumb. It’s a dumb argument. When is going ever safer than stopping lol? You are dumb.
You do realize that if you are driving blind on a highway you would probably rear-end someone, same thing you would do by slamming on the breaks lol
should’ve had following distance.
I can’t control the car behind me and I definitely don’t want them slamming into me
If you get rear ended you’ll survive. Why should your crappy eyesight or wind shield be my problem? Stay home.
People die from being rear-ended or rear-ending someone all the time
Indeed. However, it won’t do you much good if you’re being blinded by the light and can’t see.
I’m sorry your eyes suck. Why should that be a death sentence for me?
I have no plans to kill you. Maybe we should all slow down a bit and leave a bigger gap.
My eyes suck by… having someone drive close behind me…?