Driving a car makes you more likely to kill or injure somebody than walking or staying home. Is it immoral for anybody to drive a car at all?

We all take on culpability for certain harms to others. It’s just a question of what as a society we are willing to accept.

I don’t think this is an issue of society “overlooking” the morality of this specifically. It’s just that people have a lot of problems to worry about, and the crash safety of large vehicles isn’t high on the list.

Quoting Quora of all things here but:

> As autistic myself and student of philosophy, I’d say: probably, yes. I’ve read books that contain testimonials from Kant’s students and collegues. He showed ASD traits such as: (emotional and almost pathological) attachment to very strict routines; inability to control irritability and stress; inability to focus properly in certain situations (a famous example was given by his students: one day at a lesson he got stressed and refused to continue his speech because he felt unable to concentrate due to a missing button on a student’s jacket); he admitted to feel the inability to tell lies, even if for good purposes; in his writings he excuses many times for not being able to be clear about what he meant because he had an hard time putting himself in the reader’s shoes; he was described as socially akward and indifferent to social norms and costumes (famous was is dated and old-fashioned way of dressing), and to social relationships. We can’t of course be sure about Kant being autistic, but there is a possibility.

His "regular schedule" was more than that... It was a very detailed and strict routine which he was extremely attached to. I think his way of thinking so abstractly and also being unable to summarize himself are also things that resonate for me.

One thing I dislike the most about these problems – and the information/media/activism around them – is the "solutioning".

Yes, we should recycle and reduce carbon emissions and learn to live in a more integrated fashion with earth. But the problem is so diffuse and requires substantive work against powerful forces (government, business, apathy).

What I'd like to see more of, when presented with these sorts of problems, is viable solutions proposed that can be implemented bottom-up, and in the following hierarchy:

1. Regular Individuals like me e.g. "build a bird-friendly yard"

2. Influential individuals like architects, urban planners,

3. Small groups, e.g. birdwatchers, Boy Scouts, churches, schools

4. Small towns & neighborhoods, e.g. "build bird friendly parks"

All too often the "solutioning" defaults to the highest concentration of power, e.g. government/regulation – but that obviously isn't working at the speed it has to, and I suspect its because it's very easy to say "they should/we should" instead if "I will/we will".

I wonder about this too but there are people who definitely seem to have been autistic, e.g. Kant, so it can't have been that extremely rare.

I think there’s often a belief that louder motorcycles are safer because cars will be more likely to notice them.

Though I think the small cheap engines in scoters or small bikes are loud because making them quieter would be more expensive.

Many "grown-up" countries do care about this. This problem is non-existant in Austria, or Germany for the most part. Roadside police checks consist of decibel metering, which they are trained to use. They will impound the vehicle on the spot if its over the legal limit. Even race tracks have strict sound limits, the scrutineering process has a sound measurement part.

You can call out hooliganism or whatever the bad behavior is without making ridiculous claims about how engine noise is somehow illegal. That not only detracts from the point, it makes the poster look sort of ridiculous.