TheInvisibleArm Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Imagine there are two types of cars in the world, the Model A and the Model B. If a Model A collides with a Model A there is a ten percent chance of either of the two drivers dieing. If a Model A crashes with a Model B there is a 70% chance of the driver of the Model A dieing and no chance of the driver of the Model B dieing. If two Model Bs collide then there is a 30% of either driver dieing. The vehicles are otherwise identical except for the way they handle in collisions. When choosing a vehicle which vehicle would be the moral choice? If everyone choose the Model B everyone would be much worse off, however it is in an individuals best interest to protect his or her own life and the Model B is always safer for the operator than a Model A. Any thoughts? Additionally, the chances of a fatal accident are not meant to be realistic (since if they were that high everyone would walk everywhere) but they serve to obviate the point of the exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Additionally, the chances of a fatal accident are not meant to be realistic (since if they were that high everyone would walk everywhere) but they serve to obviate the point of the exercise. This appears to be a variation of the prisoner's dilemna. The main problem I have with this, as in many hypotheticals, is that you are asking people to make a rational choice based on admittedly unrealistic data. How can one make a rational choice in a situation outside of reality? VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramKatori Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 This appears to be a variation of the prisoner's dilemma. The main problem I have with this, as in many hypotheticals, ... Your comment raise a question that interests me more than the original question. It is this: is it possible to give a realistic example of this type of dilemma? Are the only possible examples hypothetical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInvisibleArm Posted November 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I think this hypothetical is pretty realistic truth be told. I just added made up numbers so I could picture various outcomes more concretely. If you want I could just say the Model A is fairly safe in collisions with Model As but very unsafe in collisions with Model Bs. The Model B is very safe in a collision with Model A, but unsafe in a collision with another Model B. Its no different on a moral level but doesn't really illustrate the consequences of a decision very well. The only thing that is unrealistic in a relevent way is making the two cars the same in every other way. The fact is however that there are cars and classes of cars that are safe to be in in a collision but very unsafe to collide with. I made this a hypothetical because I just wanted to address the safety issue and not all the other issues that go into choosing a car. I hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Additionally, the chances of a fatal accident are not meant to be realistic (since if they were that high everyone would walk everywhere) but they serve to obviate the point of the exercise. But this is actually pretty important. Given the scenario you present I probably would walk everywhere. But if I had to choose it would be B because it would be moral to preserve my own life. As long as I drove responsibly and made every effort not to hit other cars I don't see a problem with choosing B. Reality, though, is different. I choose to drive a small car, not a massive SUV, but I chose my car (Subaru Impreza) partly because of its excellent safety features and crash-test results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Additionally, the chances of a fatal accident are not meant to be realistic (since if they were that high everyone would walk everywhere) but they serve to obviate the point of the exercise. "Obviate" means "render unnecessary," that is, to prevent something from becoming a problem. I don't understand the use of this idea in the context you have provided. Perhaps you mean to say you want to make the point of the exercise obvious? As to your main question, surely the answer is simple: All other factors being equal, buy the car safest for you and drive responsibly, thereby respecting others' rights while protecting yourself. Others are responsible for their own safety, so they are not one of the factors to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Imagine there are two types of cars in the world, the Model A and the Model B. If a Model A collides with a Model A there is a ten percent chance of either of the two drivers dieing. If a Model A crashes with a Model B there is a 70% chance of the driver of the Model A dieing and no chance of the driver of the Model B dieing. If two Model Bs collide then there is a 30% of either driver dieing. The vehicles are otherwise identical except for the way they handle in collisions. When choosing a vehicle which vehicle would be the moral choice? If everyone choose the Model B everyone would be much worse off, however it is in an individuals best interest to protect his or her own life and the Model B is always safer for the operator than a Model A. Any thoughts? What is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Imagine there are two types of cars in the world, the Model A and the Model B. If a Model A collides with a Model A there is a ten percent chance of either of the two drivers dieing. If a Model A crashes with a Model B there is a 70% chance of the driver of the Model A dieing and no chance of the driver of the Model B dieing. If two Model Bs collide then there is a 30% of either driver dieing. ROFL! This is a very, very lame imitation of the Prisoner's Dilemma. It is even more unrealistic than the latter because it hypothesizes the metaphysical, not the man-made, circumstances to conspire to create a twisted malevolent-universe scenario. The stipulation that the cars are exactly the same in every other respect makes the conspiracy perfect, and the implication of people buying cars thinking they will drive them into other cars adds a bonus punch line to the joke. (There is a difference between causing an accident and suffering an accident!) You'll need to do MUCH better than this. But before you try, please look up the spelling of the gerund of "die." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I choose to drive a small car, not a massive SUV, but I chose my car (Subaru Impreza) partly because of its excellent safety features and crash-test results. If you collide with a heavy truck, though, you can bet that you would have been better off if you had been in a massive SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 If you collide with a heavy truck, though, you can bet that you would have been better off if you had been in a massive SUV. I'm not so sure. Modern unibody cars are designed with front and rear crumple zones that absorb the impact of a collision, combined with a rigid frame around the passenger compartment that protects the occupants. Big SUVs are built using a body-on-frame structure that is not designed as well to absorb the energy of impacts. More of the energy of the crash is transmitted to the occupants rather than being absorbed by crumple zones. Plus big SUVs are more likely to roll over than cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concerto of Atlantis Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'm not so sure. Modern unibody cars are designed with front and rear crumple zones that absorb the impact of a collision, combined with a rigid frame around the passenger compartment that protects the occupants. Big SUVs are built using a body-on-frame structure that is not designed as well to absorb the energy of impacts. More of the energy of the crash is transmitted to the occupants rather than being absorbed by crumple zones. Plus big SUVs are more likely to roll over than cars. This is correct. As a very general rule: If a big SUV type vehicle crashes with a MUCH smaller car, the occupants in the SUV will be safer. However, if an SUV crashes into another SUV or a tree or wall, generally, the occupants of the SUV will be worse off than if they were in a modern passenger car. Also, as pointed out, when it comes to active safety (i.e. how good a vehicle is at avoiding an accident in the first place), SUVs are generally far inferior due to their higher centre of gravity, lower agility, greater weight, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 a rigid frame around the passenger compartment that protects the occupants It's of little use if another car runs into you from behind and hits the fuel tank. It happened to the fiancee of one of my German colleagues; her tiny car caught fire immediately and she burned all the way to the bones. If she had driven a larger vehicle, I think she could still be alive. Which Are Safer: Cars Or Trucks? Death Risk Based on Relative Vehicle Masses, Sizes, and Type 2003 Honda Pilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I think fuel tank fires are relatively rare. In any case, safety was not the only reason I chose the car I did. There was also driving enjoyment, price, fuel economy, ease of parking, reliability, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlew Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I think fuel tank fires are relatively rare. This reminded me of a website... http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ ...there is a link on the left for "Flaming Cars" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.