A lot of people have no idea of the destructive power of the three ton death machine they are in command of. For that reason I think it should be mandatory to volunteer in a crash recovery ward at a hospital for 100 hours before getting a drivers license.
I’ve had a few bike accidents (usually me vs a trash can that suddenly rolled onto the bike lane, or similar obstructions of the road) where I had to go to the ER.
I obviously had to wait a few hours, because while I may have a concussion and broken some bones, there are people with far worse injuries in the ER.
One time I had to wait 12 hours because a major car accident had happened, and I saw them move the victims of that into the ER.
I was instantly reminded of the difference in danger, and very glad that my injuries happened with a 20 kg vehicle at 20 km/h, and not a 2000 kg vehicle at 100 km/h.
Which is why we should force them to see the reality of what happens when people do. And they'll talk to those people who are severely injured, who will say "it was never going to happen to me either".
I'd bet the number of licensed drivers would drop, people wouldn't want a license after seeing the harsh reality.
A lot of people buy these three ton machines to feel "safe". In turn they don't feel the need to protect others from that machine. In my LA neighborhood I saw a lot of moms barreling through the neighborhood in their big SUVs with their kids while talking on the phone or texting. I have had several occasions where I had to jump out of the way to not getting run over. I don't think the drivers even noticed me.
when I had my motorcycle most near misses were also with SUV drivers not paying attention when changing lanes. The more expensive the SUV the more dangerous.
And the worst thing is: when they do run someone over the DA won't prosecute because they want to be re-elected, and when it does end up in criminal court the jury won't convict because they know it might have easily been them.
How do you square the "three ton death machine" with the whole "recreationally gallivanting across Africa in a Jeep and blogging about it for internet points" thing? Your words say a car usage should be minimized. Your actions say another thing. It comes across a lot like taking your private jet to a climate summit. I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile this apparent conflict.
1. The person you're responding to is clearly aware of the responsibility required when driving a large car (their comment says this explicitly);
2. An outbacking trip through Africa is not meaningfully comparable to daily automotive commuting. It's probably safe to assume that the GP practiced outsized caution, given the logistical and legal complexity of such a trip.
