> don't tell me, that your instinct woudln't be to run, if out of nowhere, you saw a guy twice your size grab your car door, and another one shouting at you
I would grant this defense to a child or a person of cognitive impairment, but this is a person who obtained a driver's license, and having done so myself, I think the licensure process is fairly robust at verifying that you are not someone who drives by your first instinct.
There are a NUMBER of scenarios in driving, where your first instinct (usually "slam on the break") would result in devastating consequences for you and people around you, so people who follow their first instinct ought not to drive.
Incidentally, Saudi Arabia used to forbid all women from obtaining a driver's license, and a significant part of their justification was that they claimed women could not be expected to drive safely. So Saudis may accept your perspective, but you would probably not like their solution.
In the end, if people claim the right to be treated as adults capable of taking responsibility, then we cannot allow them to later claim immunity from consequences because they "just followed their instincts". If we did that then "instincts" would become a get-out-of-jail-free card and we would therefore live in a world with no consequence at all.
---
Disclaimer: This is on the question of whether driving by instinct is defensible, it is NOT related to the matter of getting shot by a cop - because being shot by a cop is not punishment, it is only legitimate as self-defense. You can potentially be shot while being 100% reasonable, because (unbeknownst to you) your actions are actually about to kill someone. If you reply something like "deserved to die" I will tap the sign.
I would grant this defense to a child or a person of cognitive impairment, but this is a person who obtained a driver's license, and having done so myself, I think the licensure process is fairly robust at verifying that you are not someone who drives by your first instinct.
There are a NUMBER of scenarios in driving, where your first instinct (usually "slam on the break") would result in devastating consequences for you and people around you, so people who follow their first instinct ought not to drive.
Incidentally, Saudi Arabia used to forbid all women from obtaining a driver's license, and a significant part of their justification was that they claimed women could not be expected to drive safely. So Saudis may accept your perspective, but you would probably not like their solution.
In the end, if people claim the right to be treated as adults capable of taking responsibility, then we cannot allow them to later claim immunity from consequences because they "just followed their instincts". If we did that then "instincts" would become a get-out-of-jail-free card and we would therefore live in a world with no consequence at all.
---
Disclaimer: This is on the question of whether driving by instinct is defensible, it is NOT related to the matter of getting shot by a cop - because being shot by a cop is not punishment, it is only legitimate as self-defense. You can potentially be shot while being 100% reasonable, because (unbeknownst to you) your actions are actually about to kill someone. If you reply something like "deserved to die" I will tap the sign.