This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If something is limiting your visibility to 150", then you are responsible to go no faster than the speed under which you can stop in 150' or less.

It doesn't appear so, but is someone saying this isn't so?

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And if its a clear, sunny day on an interstate with traffic cruising along at 60-75 mph, and someone loses control in front of you, what's the reasonable expectation for capacity to stop or avoid becoming involved?

Are you talking about the car that is in the same lane you are, in front of you?

You should be far enough behind that vehicle so that if they were to come to a sudden screeching halt for no reason apparent to you, you would have time to see that they're decelerating, realize what that means, apply your own brakes, and slow and/or stop your vehicle before you hit them (how long it would take to do this depends, of course, on your own reflexes, your vehicle's stopping ability, road conditions, and your velocity). If you don't have time to do all that, you're following too close and should back off. And if you do have time to do all that, then that vehicle suddenly losing control and skidding or swerving back and forth should give you plenty of time to get your vehicle slowed down.

If you're talking about a car in another lane that may lose control and come into your lane in front of you, it's not reasonable to expect you to be able to avoid that.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

In Ontario, at least, if you hit the car in front of you (in the same lane) from behind, you are at fault. Always. even if he slams on the breaks. The law says that you're travelling too close, so you caused the accident.

Them's the rules.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Now I assume there's leeway on that, though - it's conceivable that someone could come up alongside you, cut over right in front of you, and then immediately slam on their brakes, before you have time to adjust to the "new" car in front of you. That's not your fault.

Given that caveat, though, this is, IMHO, as it should be.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Yeah, if someone pulls in front of you, they're at fault. They're turning (changing lanes at least) so it's their mistake.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Actually, in the U.S. the law is similar, and I'm not sure it's caught up. The "swoop and squat" maneuver is an insurance scam that operates on that principle. They get a beat up old car loaded with people, pin you in a lane where you can't move out of the way, then swoop in front of you and slam on the brakes so you run into them. Then they collect your insurance for "injuries" because it's legally your fault, nevermind that they moved in front of you.

The Law doesn't necessarily conform to reason.

Actually, that's not how "swoop and squat" works. "Swoop and squat" involves three vehicles, two of which are driven by accomplices in the crime. One vehicle gets in front of you, then the other vehicle swerves over in front of the first vehicle. The first vehicle slams on their brakes, ostensibly to avoid the "swerver," and you hit them while the "swerver" flees the scene. This gives the braking vehicle a legitimate, sure-to-be-witnessed reason for braking. They tend to target elderly drivers whose reflexes are probably not as good.

Since the car that is braking and being hit is not actually swerving in front, the victim is, technically, "at fault." It is an insurance scam, though, and if caught, the perpetrators are punished and the "victim" is generally not.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

1) Permissible.
2) Obligatory.
3) Forbidden.

__________________
The more I know, the less I know.

As SeanF said, if someone swerves into your path then that's not your fault, but being able to stop within the distance you can see is surely only sensible, as you say. Not so well known is the requirement (and sensibleness) to be able to stop in half that distance on a very narrow road where oncoming traffic is likely to be in your path.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Here telstra have the policy for their workers: "Never admit liability".

A couple of days ago my dad backed into someone else(in frount of people and everything) and he admited that it was his fault- he actually ended up getting in trouble for this...

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

Personally I think that most peiple I have read have tried to read to much into things.

#1. With the information given, all you have is two groups of unknown people walking on the tracks. If you act then the carriage is going to hit one of them, if you don't it will hit five. Either way a case for criminal action or inaction could be made, but in the end I believe that an excuse of, "I did nothing because someone would be killed," would be an acceptable defence. In this case, by walking on the tracks, both groups have acknowledged and accepted the risks. Neither group here is "innocent" to those risks.

#2 is pretty obvious really. A life is more important than clothing. Clothing can be replaced.

#3 is a little more interesting, yet I think the answer is more simple that it at first it appears. This is because there is another solution than letting the five die. In the first situation we only had one choice, either switch the train or not. Here we have a third option. It's unlikely that all the patients requiring transplants will die simultaneously, so instead we can allow nature to taken it's course for them until the first dies, and allow them to become the doner for the other four. In this way we still have sacrficed one for the many as in option one, but we haven't saccrificed an innocent who has not taken a risk in doing so.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

A lot of great analysis and ideas in this thread, by a lot of
people-- especially The Supreme Canuck.

I agree that the particulars of the circumstances are important,
but I also agree that many of the particulars put forward aren't
part of the original scenario and so aren't really relevant.

That is not part of the original scenario. The people are
walking on the tracks. That is all we are given. They may or
may not know that they are on railway tracks. They may or may
not know that the tracks are in use. They may all have good
reason to think that they are not in use.

Perhaps the tracks are new and have never been used before.
The "runaway trolly", whose new automated acceleration and
braking system you are testing, should have stopped at the
station a half mile away. You are the "railway worker" who
can throw the switch, and that is the only option available
to you because there is no-one on the automated trolly and
you are running this unscheduled, unauthorized test all by
yourself, and you don't know how to cut the power to the
tracks, and the automated braking system you designed isn't
working.

In other words, it's all YOUR fault!

A friend of mine recently designed an automated acceleration
and braking system for a rail line in England. He said there
was a suggestion that he be duct-taped to the the front of the
railcar during the first official test run. I don't believe
he did any unauthorized testing in secret before that....

#2 is clearly a strawman.

The original problem doesn't say so, but it is clear that that
is not an option. The only available donor is the innocent guy
in the waiting room. It is curious that the donor is guaranteed
to die but the recipients are guaranteed to survive.

My first reaction to the problem was "I don't like the available
options." None of the scenarios are obligatory, permissible, or
forbidden-- they are all choices that one must make, which other
people will strongly agree and disagree with.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Aren't you guilty of reading too much into #3. It is "interesting" when the only two options are to let the five people die, or sacrifice one innocent healthy person to save them all (to full health and with the same prognosis as the sacrificed one would have had).

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

This is an interesting thread, and more so because some people can't resist adding circumstances that would affect their decisions, which is understandable since life isn't always black and white. I like SupremeC's bringing up the utilitarian doctrine, but I have a problem applying that to Case #1.

1. I'd say it's permissible and understandable that in a blind situation, knowing no circumstances, one chooses to save more lives over one. I would think that if it were one vs. two, the same choice would be made if one thinks along those lines, and I do think it's the more morally defensible view in a blind situation. Even if you come to find out that the five were suicidal and wanted to be there, and the one was a worker, you might question your decision, but you've still increased the potential for more happiness. The family of the one you chose to sacrifice for a greater good might think that five (or two or three) lives weren't enough for you to take the good fortune (for lack of better word) away from the safe guy; that you played with fate and killed him without knowing a darn thing about the situation, and this is why it shouldn't be obligatory. One shouldn't be obligated to kill someone. Can you really say it's morally indefensible in blind situations to let five people die over one who was not at risk? I'm not fatalistic, but my dilemma is with the number five. I don't think I would flip the switch for five people and deliberately kill the guy who happens to be alone. I guess I don't think five is enough to bear the burden of having taken away the safe guy's life. If it were a 100 or 1,000 on the death track, I would flip it because the overwhelming number and potential misery would overcome the discomfort of killing the one. But in a split-second decision, for all I know I could see FIVE and one, and the visual imbalance of seeing more or less might cause me to instinctively react and flip the switch. Either way I'd feel cruddy. In an equal situation where there's, say, one on a roof of a flooded house, and five on another, the water is rising and there's only time to go to one house, I'd go to the five.


To mess with my head more about the value of five, I imagined the same situation except that the one was my brother. Still no knowledge about the circumstances--you see the train going after five, you see your brother on the safe track. Would those who would flip the switch for five still do it? Or does the value of five change? Would you flip it and kill your brother if there were 100 or 1000 people on the death track? At what point does a "greater good" kick in? Just musing.

2. Obligatory. If your pants are more important than saving someone then you have the moral fiber of...pants.

3. Forbidden. If it were OK to harvest healthy people's organs to save others there would be no end to doing so. Besides the obvious rights of a person, there would be little incentive to maintain one's health lest it be taken away from them. You'd be killing off healthier people to save unhealthy people and the repurcussions would be deleterious to the greater good of society and mankind. In the train situation, that person's moral dilemma/decision does not affect the whole of society and the ethical ramifications of medicine and healthcare.

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

#1 has to be easy for the girls, they wouldn't know how to operate the switch anyway

That was postmodern irony, not sexism, by the way.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Yes, that is a more realistic option to resolving the dilemma of option 3. But that doesn't address the question presented in 3.

Yes, it is pretty simplistic. I think it's main purpose was to separate cases 1 and 3 so they weren't back to back.

The original context of the morality quiz was not to establish any "objective" moral decision on any criteria. The intent was to gather responses from people on how they make moral decisions, and then compare the results against various "moral codes" being used. So the responses are for you to evaluate by your own code what your code tells you about the decision. Nevermind what anyone else would think or feel.

The results indicate that the reasons for different answers to the questions were either not consciously explainable by the person, or else were not dependent upon the source of the moral code.

I posted it not as a continuation of that investigation, but to help with my own questions in evaluating the moral differences between the situations presented. I appreciate the thoughtful replies.