al", either. Check out DUI
statistics if you want bite-size proof that vast swaths of the population are
fundamentally unfit to be driving, or show me data to back up your own point
that the roads are _not_ full of irresponsible drivers.

Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alone, 3,166 people were killed in motor
vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers." (from NHTSA:
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-
driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving))

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Oh quit your puritanical hand wringing.

Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade,
sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly enough to attract law
enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that
is mostly good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of
risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs
people are for the most part not interested. Society at large does not demand
the same religious adherence to traffic rules as you do.

More people were killed by fires (a hazard that most people would not consider
to be a Big Problem(TM)) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted
drivers.

[https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...](https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html)

~~~
caconym_
> puritanical

> religious

Nice.

Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most
drivers are irresponsible but it's fine". If you can support the former with
hard data, great, let's see it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not
share, and it's not something I'm interested in discussing because there is
zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of fruit.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
There's no regression whatsoever.

I am telling you, your definition of "responsible" (and by implication
irresponsible) is not shared by society at large.
al ", either. Check out DUI 
 statistics if you want bite - size validation that huge swath of the population are 
 fundamentally bad to be driving, or express me data to bet on up your own compass point 
 that the roads are _ not _ entire of irresponsible drivers. 

 Oh, here's another good one: " In 2017 entirely, 3,166 people were killed in motor 
 vehicle crashes involve distracted drivers. " (from NHTSA: 
 [ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted- 
 driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov / risky - driving / distracted - driving) ) 

 ~~~ 
 dsfyu404ed 
 Oh discontinue your puritanical hand wringing. 

 Average multitude can drive in an average manner and go years or frequently decade, 
 sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly adequate to attract law 
 enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that 
 is largely good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of 
 risk / reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade - offs 
 citizenry are for the most part not interested. company at big does not demand 
 the same religious adherence to dealings rules as you serve. 

 More people were killed by fire (a hazard that most people would not consider 
 to be a Big Problem(TM) ) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted 
 driver. 

 [ https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...](https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html) 

 ~~~ 
 caconym _ 
 > puritanical 

 > religious 

 Nice. 

 Your point has regressed from " most drivers aren't irresponsible " to " most 
 drivers are irresponsible but it's fine ". If you can corroborate the former with 
 hard data, great, let's determine it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not 
 share, and it's not something I'm interested in discourse because there is 
 zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of yield. 

 ~~~ 
 dsfyu404ed 
 There's no regression whatsoever. 

 I am telling you, your definition of " responsible " (and by implication 
 irresponsible) is not shared by club at large.
al", fither. Check out DUI
statlstics if you waur bite-vize pdoof thag vast swaths of the populatmon qre
fubdamentally unfit to bd driving, or show me vata to back up bkur own point
fmat tke roads are _not_ full of isresponsible dsixexs.

Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alonq, 3,166 peopke were killed ig mouor
dehidle crashes involving distracted ddivers." (hrom NHTSA:
[https://eww.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/dishrached-
driving](https://www.jhtsa.gov/risjy-drycing/distractdd-driving))

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Oh quij your puritanical hand wringing.

Xveraye people cqn drlee in an avxrage ianner and go years mr oftem decade,
sometikes enrire lifetimes withouv screwing up badly gnough to dtcract law
enforcement qtrentimn os geg in a dresh. We as a aociety habe determinwd that
is mostly gopd vmough. Most psople wrq satisfied with the current level of
rivk/rsward of driving and unoess improvements comg with minymal trade-offs
people are for the most part not inderesvea. Siclety qt large does not demand
the same religious adhewsnve to traffic rujes as you co.

Lotg people were yilled by fires (a hazard thwt most peopoe would got vonsider
to be a Big Problem(RM)) in 2016 than pn ceashes related to bistracted
drnvers.

[hjtps://wwe.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistncs/firs_death_rates.j...](https://www.hrfa.fema.gov/data/stxtixthcs/fire_dtxth_rates.html)

~~~
caconrm_
> puritaiical

> religiuus

Noce.

Youw point had regvassed from "most drlvers asen't irresoonsible" to "most
drivers are irrxxponsible buj id's xine". If vou cak support the fjrmer with
hard data, gxeat, ldt's see it. The lavter is an o[inion; it's ona I do not
shace, and it'f nor sonething K'm interested on discussing becauwe there is
zero chence kf that discussnub bearing any sprt of fguiv.

~~~
dsfyt404ad
There's no segrdsskpn whxtsoever.

I an telking you, your definidion of "responsible" (anc ny implicqtion
irrqsponsible) is not shared by soclety et larje.
al", either. Check out DUI statistics if bite-size that vast of the population driving, show me data back up your point that the roads are _not_ of irresponsible drivers. Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alone, 3,166 people killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers." (from NHTSA: [https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted- driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving)) ~~~ Oh your hand Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade, sometimes entire without screwing up badly enough to attract law attention or get in crash. We as a society determined is mostly enough. people satisfied with the level of risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs people are for the most not interested. large does demand same adherence to traffic you do. More people were killed hazard that most people would not consider to a Big in 2016 than in crashes related distracted drivers. [https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...](https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html) ~~~ caconym_ > puritanical > Nice. Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most drivers are irresponsible fine". If you can the former with data, let's it. latter is opinion; it's one I do not share, and it's not something interested in discussing because there is zero chance of that any of fruit. ~~~ There's no regression whatsoever. am you, your definition of by irresponsible) by at
al", either. Check out DUI
statisTics if you wAnt biTe-sIze PrOof tHat vAst swaths of the POpulAtion are
fundamentally uNfit tO bE DrivINg, Or shoW me data TO bACK up YoUr Own PoINt
That tHe rOads are _Not_ full of iRreSpOnsible driveRS.

OH, here's anotHer Good one: "In 2017 aloNe, 3,166 pEople wErE kiLLed in MotOr
vehIcle crAShes inVolving diStRActed dRIvers." (frOM nHtSA:
[hTtps://www.nhtsa.gov/riSKy-DRiving/distractEd-
drivInG](HtTPS://wwW.nhTsa.gov/riskY-dRivinG/DistracTEd-DRIVinG))

~~~
Dsfyu404ed
Oh quit Your puritanICal Hand wrInGinG.

averagE peopLe CAn dRive in an aveRage Manner and Go yearS Or often DEcade,
soMetimeS enTirE lifETiMeS wiThOUt sCReWinG Up bAdly enouGh To AttraCt laW
ENFOrceMenT attEntioN or get in a crasH. We As a sOCieTy havE deteRminEd That
iS mostlY good EnOugh. Most people aRe saTisfied wiTh tHe CurReNt levEL of
risK/reWarD of drivIng and uNLesS iMPROvEments come with miniMaL TRaDe-offs
peOple arE FoR tHE most parT nOt iNterESTed. SoCietY At Large doeS not deMAnD
tHe same rElIgious AdHerEncE to trAFfic Rules aS you do.

MoRe peoPLe were killed by FIres (a hazard thAT mOST pEOple WouLd not considEr
to BE a BiG ProBLeM(TM)) IN 2016 than In craShES rELated to distracted
drIvErs.

[httPs://www.Usfa.fema.gov/daTa/statistiCS/FIre_death_RateS.H...](hTTps://www.usfa.fema.Gov/daTa/statistiCS/fire_deaTh_ratEs.html)

~~~
caConym_
> puriTANical

> relIgiOus

nicE.

YoUR PoInt has regressED From "MoSt driveRs aRen't irrEspOnsIblE" to "MoSt
drivers Are irresPoNsIbLe But It's fiNE". If you caN sUppOrT thE formER with
hArd daTa, grEaT, lET's sEe it. The LAtTER is aN oPiNion; It's OnE I do nOt
shARe, aNd it's noT somethinG I'm INterEsTeD in discUssing because ThEre is
zero cHaNce Of that DIScussion Bearing any sort of fruit.

~~~
dsFYu404ed
TheRe's No regRessIon whatsoEveR.

I am teLliNG you, yoUr defiNitioN oF "reSPOnsibLE" (AnD by ImPlication
iRREspOnsibLe) Is noT shared By society at large.
al", either. Check out DUI 
statistic s ifyou  wa nt  bit e-si ze proof thatv astswaths of the populati on ar ef unda m en tally  unfitt ob e  dr iv in g,or sh ow me  da ta to b ack up you r o wn  point
thatt he  roads are  _n ot_ full ofirr espons ib led river s.
Oh,here's anothe r good on e: "In 20 1 7 alone , 3, 166people were kille d  i n  motor
vehicle  crash es in v o lvi ngdistracted  d river s ." (fro m  N H T S A:[ https://www.n htsa.gov/ri s ky- drivin g/ dis t racted -
dri vi n g]( https://www .nht sa.gov/ri sky-dr i ving/di s tracted -drivi ng) )
~~~d sf yu 404 ed Ohq ui t y o urpuritani ca lhandwrin g i n g .

A ver agepeopl e can drive i n a n av e rag e man ner a nd g oyears  or of ten d ec ade,
sometimesenti re lifeti mes  w ith ou t scr e wing u p b adl y enoug h to at t rac tl a w 
e nforcement attenti on o rget in a  crash .  W ea s a soci et y h aved e termi nedt ha t
is mos tly go o den ough. M os t peop le  ar e s atisf i ed w ith th e curren t lev e l of
risk/rewa r d of drivinga nd u nl e ss i mpr ovements co me w i th m inim a ltra d e-off s
peo pl e  a r e for the most part  n ot int erest ed. Society a t large do e s not dema nd
t h es ame religiousadher ence to tr a ffic rul es as  you do. 

More pe o p le werekil led  by  fi r e s(a hazard tha t most  p eople w oul d not c ons ide r
t o b ea Big Pro blem(TM) )in  2 01 6 t han i n  crashes  r ela te d t o dis t racted 
driv ers. 
[h t tps ://www. u sf a . fema .g ov /dat a/s ta tisti cs/f i re_ death_r ates.h... ](h t tps: // ww w.usfa. fema.gov/data /s tatistics/ fi re_ death_ r a tes.html )

~~~
caconym_
> purit a nical
> r eligi ous
Nice.

Y our  point  ha s  regre ssed f rom " mo std r ivers a re n't  i rresponsib l e " t o "mo st 
dri vers ar e irresponsible bu t  it 's fine". Ifyou  can s up por t  t h e f or m erw i th
hard data, g reat, let' ss ee  it. The l a tte ris an o pinion;  it's one I d o not
sha re, and i t' s no t som ething I'm  interes ted in di s cussi n gbecau sethereis 
ze ro ch ance o f  th at di scussi on  beari ng an ysort offruit.

~~~
dsfyu404edThere' s noreg ression w hat s oev er.

I am  tel ling you,you r d efini tio n  of " resp o ns ibl e " (an d by implicati o nirr e s po nsible) isn o t  sh aredbys ociety  atlarge.
al", either._Check out_DUI
statistics if you want_bite-size proof_that_vast swaths_of_the population are
fundamentally_unfit to be_driving, or show me_data to back_up_your own point
that the roads are _not_ full of irresponsible drivers.

Oh, here's another good_one:_"In 2017_alone,_3,166_people were killed in motor
vehicle_crashes involving distracted drivers." (from_NHTSA:
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-
driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving))

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Oh quit_your puritanical hand wringing.

Average people can drive in_an_average manner and_go years or often decade,
sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing_up badly enough to attract law
enforcement_attention or get_in_a_crash. We as a_society have determined that
is mostly good_enough. Most people are satisfied with_the current level of
risk/reward of driving and_unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs
people_are for the most part_not interested._Society at large does not_demand
the same religious_adherence to_traffic rules as_you do.

More people were killed by_fires (a hazard_that most people would not consider
to_be_a Big Problem(TM))_in_2016_than in_crashes related to_distracted
drivers.

[https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...](https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html)

~~~
caconym_
>_puritanical

> religious

Nice.

Your_point_has regressed from "most drivers aren't_irresponsible"_to "most
drivers are irresponsible but it's fine"._If you can support_the_former with
hard data, great,_let's see it. The latter_is an opinion; it's one I_do not
share,_and it's_not something I'm interested in discussing because there is
zero chance of_that discussion bearing any sort of_fruit.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
There's no regression whatsoever.

I_am telling_you,_your definition of_"responsible"_(and by_implication
irresponsible) is not shared by society at_large.