You’re saying a different thing than they did. They said a drunk 14-year-old on a bike is in more danger than a 21-year-old in a car, which is correct
Drunk pedestrians and cyclists statistically are in more danger than drivers, per mile, by a decent margin
The problem is that doesn’t account for externalities, namely the risk of injuring others. A pedestrian or cyclist is unlikely to seriously injure someone else, whereas a driver would
Edit: This is in the US, other countries will have different resukts due to more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure
More of a danger to themselves. Most people, even drunks, put on their seatbelts. That means if there’s an accident, even at high speed, the driver is protected by restraints and airbags.
A kid on a bike doesn’t have that.
If there’s a collision between a bike and a car, which vehicle do you want to be in?
I read what you wrote but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just to be clear, you’re saying that you’d prefer drunk drivers in cars versus bikes because you’re more concerned about the drunk driver’s safety than people they might run into/over?
My speculation is that lowering the drinking age should result in fewer deaths overall for this very reason. I don’t want drunk drivers to die either but if I had to choose I’d prefer the drunk drivers to die over the person that they hit. I also reject your premise that crashing into something with your bike is more dangerous than crashing into something with a car, seatbelt or not. Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
I specifically said that a drunken 14 year old is more at risk of hurting themselves than a drunk adult wearing a safety belt. I never said that drunk driving was ‘safe’
You are very bad at communicating. You were correct in your initial comment, but really went off the rails and said many incorrect things afterwards
Walking and biking is statistically more dangerous, mile per mile, for a drunk person than driving. The caveat is this excludes externalities such as injuring other people
Had you said that, I think more people would have understood what you meant. As it stands, it sounds like you’re advocating for drunk driving
Mile per mile, drunk walking and biking is more dangerous than drunk driving for the individual. Obviously why drunk driving is not okay is the danger to others, which is why his wording specifically only mentioned the danger to themselves
Yes, because 14 year olds are so responsible otherwise.
A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably in more danger than a drunk 21 year old in a car.
And don’t get me started on what trouble a drunk 14 year old girl can get into.
No way a drunk 14 year old on a bike is worse than a drunk anyone in a car.
14 year olds should have more oversight from their parents though too. Better to learn from a parent or guardian than a frat bro or whatever.
You’re saying a different thing than they did. They said a drunk 14-year-old on a bike is in more danger than a 21-year-old in a car, which is correct
Drunk pedestrians and cyclists statistically are in more danger than drivers, per mile, by a decent margin
The problem is that doesn’t account for externalities, namely the risk of injuring others. A pedestrian or cyclist is unlikely to seriously injure someone else, whereas a driver would
Edit: This is in the US, other countries will have different resukts due to more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure
Read what I wrote.
More of a danger to themselves. Most people, even drunks, put on their seatbelts. That means if there’s an accident, even at high speed, the driver is protected by restraints and airbags.
A kid on a bike doesn’t have that.
If there’s a collision between a bike and a car, which vehicle do you want to be in?
I read what you wrote but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just to be clear, you’re saying that you’d prefer drunk drivers in cars versus bikes because you’re more concerned about the drunk driver’s safety than people they might run into/over?
My speculation is that lowering the drinking age should result in fewer deaths overall for this very reason. I don’t want drunk drivers to die either but if I had to choose I’d prefer the drunk drivers to die over the person that they hit. I also reject your premise that crashing into something with your bike is more dangerous than crashing into something with a car, seatbelt or not. Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
You are hilarious!
Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it’s a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.
I’m not as concerned about the safety of the drunk as I am about anyone else who may be near them while operating their chosen vehicle.
With that in mind a bike is better.
Apples and oranges.
I specifically said that a drunken 14 year old is more at risk of hurting themselves than a drunk adult wearing a safety belt. I never said that drunk driving was ‘safe’
A drunk 21 year old in a car could wipe out a family. A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably at worst only going to kill themselves.
I wrote twice that the drunk kid was going to hurt themselves.
How you got that I approve adults driving drunk is a mystery to me, one I prefer not to waste time solving.
You are very bad at communicating. You were correct in your initial comment, but really went off the rails and said many incorrect things afterwards
Walking and biking is statistically more dangerous, mile per mile, for a drunk person than driving. The caveat is this excludes externalities such as injuring other people
Had you said that, I think more people would have understood what you meant. As it stands, it sounds like you’re advocating for drunk driving
Let me help you out. It was this one:
That statement is technically correct
Mile per mile, drunk walking and biking is more dangerous than drunk driving for the individual. Obviously why drunk driving is not okay is the danger to others, which is why his wording specifically only mentioned the danger to themselves
Source