What am I adding to the conversation? I thought your question was fucking stupid and typical of people that want to put safety rails on everything, child proof everything, and legislate everything to the point you cant do anything fun. Im not saying you're that person, but I am saying that your question sure makes it sound like you are. I felt my response was a common sense response to your silly, perhaps hyperbolic, question and needed to be said. What exactly did your question add to the conversation? Nothing.

[Edit]

Also, in response to your car analogy, how many of those accidents were caused by people operating a motor vehicle while on a phone, texting, being intoxicated, being on drugs prescribed or illegal, being too exhausted to drive, driving too fast in hazardous conditions such as rain, snow, and ice, driving recklessly or at a high rate of speed through construction zones, etc.? Are you telling me these people were able to get a license without being aware of the dangers? Hell, there are even laws to prevent most of the stuff I listed yet people do them anyhow. People are reckless, only are concerned with themselves, and many can't seem make the connection that actions have consequences, or they just don't care. That makes them what? Say it with me... Imbeciles!

[Edit 2]

> How much karma do I have to waste explaining such a simple idea to people? I'm done.

I especially enjoyed your last line. Thank you for that :-)

You absolutely need to be a) an imbecile or b) deliberately reckless to cause a car accident.

Driving is really quite simple.