@Stercus Tauri : If I had to guess, driver was in desperate hury and rationalized that they weren't driving very far and figured they'd make it and deal with the mess later. People who drink and drive may follow similar patterns. "I have to get somewhere..."
And they're not exactly wrong.
If you drive a relatively short distance whilst only mildly impaired, on roads you are familiar with and with little traffic, the risks are small.
NHTSA says that crash risks are increased by a factor of 4 at a BAC of 0.08%, and by a factor of 15 or more at 0.15%. We all agree that risk-taking behavior is increased with even a modest amount of alcohol in the system. (For reference, driving with a 0.08% BAC and driving whilst tired present a similar increase in risk.)
But a factor of 4 or 15 increased risk on a very small risk is still a very small risk, and the drunk driver who rationalizes that they're not going far, that the roads are quiet, and that they'll be OK - is probably right. If the probability of crashing is increased by a factor of 4 when mildly impaired, then driving 10 miles in that state poses the same risk as driving 40 miles awake and sober.
You still shouldn't do it, of course. But the rationalization isn't exactly wrong.
I think there's potentially a similar calculus at play with the guy driving a snowball. How risky is is depends on the details of the roads you're driving on. Are you going somewhere where there are (or might be) pedestrians, in which case your limited visibility is a big problem? Are you going somewhere with busy, chaotic traffic patterns? Ditto.
But there are other roads where a lack of peripheral vision matters much less.
If you're setting off from home, there certainly will be a high probability of pedestrians, not to mention cyclists and other vulnerable road users who you could easily kill.
Also surely there's a high risk of the sheet of snow on the windshield moving as the car moves and suddenly collapsing into the space that's been wiped clear? That's even more dangerous. Surely it takes longer to specifically clear a small gap as opposed to just sweeping the whole windshield clear?
It reminds me of the people who buy devices you clip into your seatbelt buckle (I feel like that's not what it's called, but the part you clip the seatbelt into!) to stop the seatbelt warning sound from going off when the vehicle is moving but you're not wearing a seatbelt - it's easier to just use the seatbelt as intended. There are a surprising number of people who are weirdly fixated on seatbelt laws as some libertarian frontier.
Also surely there's a high risk of the sheet of snow on the windshield moving as the car moves and suddenly collapsing into the space that's been wiped clear? That's even more dangerous. Surely it takes longer to specifically clear a small gap as opposed to just sweeping the whole windshield clear?
It reminds me of the people who buy devices you clip into your seatbelt buckle (I feel like that's not what it's called, but the part you clip the seatbelt into!) to stop the seatbelt warning sound from going off when the vehicle is moving but you're not wearing a seatbelt - it's easier to just use the seatbelt as intended. There are a surprising number of people who are weirdly fixated on seatbelt laws as some libertarian frontier.
Not wearing a seat belt results in a pretty high fine these days, at least in Washington State.
I think the significant thing to note is that while a .15% chance of an accident when driving home after drinking on one evening is indeed a very small absolute increase on a 0.01% chance, if you drive home three hundred times a year for three years, your chance of having an accident goes from less than 10% to just less than 75%. It's not the increased risk of an accident on one specific occasion - it's the increased risk of you make a habit of it.
Not wearing a seat belt results in a pretty high fine these days, at least in Washington State.
Not wearing a seat belt also results in avoidable catastrophic injuries, which can add up to a pretty heavy social cost that will be carried by a lot of people regardless of the injured person's political beliefs.
And it's a very easy thing to do. I understand traffic laws are inconvenient, but given the cost of reckless behavior with automobiles, I can understand why the government gets involved.
Comments
---Martin Luther King Jr.
Alcohol isn't exactly good for one's ability to think lucidly.
If you're setting off from home, there certainly will be a high probability of pedestrians, not to mention cyclists and other vulnerable road users who you could easily kill.
It reminds me of the people who buy devices you clip into your seatbelt buckle (I feel like that's not what it's called, but the part you clip the seatbelt into!) to stop the seatbelt warning sound from going off when the vehicle is moving but you're not wearing a seatbelt - it's easier to just use the seatbelt as intended. There are a surprising number of people who are weirdly fixated on seatbelt laws as some libertarian frontier.
Not wearing a seat belt results in a pretty high fine these days, at least in Washington State.
Not wearing a seat belt also results in avoidable catastrophic injuries, which can add up to a pretty heavy social cost that will be carried by a lot of people regardless of the injured person's political beliefs.
And it's a very easy thing to do. I understand traffic laws are inconvenient, but given the cost of reckless behavior with automobiles, I can understand why the government gets involved.