• NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 day ago

    All these types of collisions stories always use phrases like, “the vehicle hit” or “the truck/car/motorcycle collided with”.

    The finger point always somehow starts with the vehicle its self, never the operator behind the wheel, or anything to do with the surrounding infrastructure. It’s always as if the driver themselves never existed.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      it’s a lesson that hasbara has taught the world: frame it in the way that’s beneficial to your interests and people will think of it in those terms.

      that’s why genocides are ignored as simple “authoritarian” power grabs.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      To be fair, it probably is the vehicles fault. They have a child size blind spot right in front. Should be illegal

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The driver probably chose to buy that specific vehicle with the additional danger it poses to everybody else.

        If you buy and drive a vehicle with a design which makes it far more likely to not see and thus is more likely to kill children and people in wheelchairs, and which in general is almost twice as likely to kill pedestrians in a collision, then it’s your fault when it does.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Yes, they definitely share the blame… But far less than the auto industry that is not only making increasingly big and dangerous cars, but also creating an arms race on the road

          It was irresponsible to buy such a dangerous truck, but the buyer probably didn’t recognize the scale of the danger. The salesman probably didn’t demonstrate that feature. The manufacturer certainly knew, and yet despite growing demand for tiny trucks, they just keep making them bigger

          It’s a systematic issue, you can fault individuals for their part in it, but you can only solve the problem systematically

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Personally I think that the highest blame is on those who are supposed to regulate it.

            Even big-sized market actors like automakers aren’t going to adjust their profit-seeking to avoid systemic issues like “arms race on the road” unless they’re forced to: it is well known and more than proven in Economics that Negative Externalities like this (and like the most obvious example of a Negative Externality: Polution) are invariably created by market actors if it makes them more profit, unless they are actually forced otherwise by an external entity with more power than them.

            If the Economic system is Capitalism, then don’t be surprised when the capitalists optimize their actions for personal upsides, and as bigger car mean more profits automakers will carry only pushing them unless they’re they’re forced otherwise.