• MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Saapas@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      People die from being rear-ended or rear-ending someone all the time though

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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: