# Split-Second Poll



## Hijinks (Mar 10, 2010)

Im curious as to what most would choose. 

The scenario is as follows: You're driving along one evening. Suddenly, you see a ragged hunch-backed woman pushing a baby stroller across the road. You haven't enough time to stop, and you only have enough room to swerve around either the woman or the stroller without driving into a lethal hazard.


----------



## Calvaire (Nov 14, 2009)

I kind of feel like a horrible person now.
I'd hit the women and spare the baby.

but really
I should of saved both and killed myself
but honestly I don't think I would have the nerve..


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

I said hitting the baby. I based my answer on the recent case where a baby in a stroller was hit by a train and lived. I was hoping for the same luck.


----------



## Cinnamon (May 28, 2010)

I feel a little pretentious to have said that I'd save them and kill myself, but it would definitely be my instinctive reaction. For me, the fact that the woman is ragged and hunch-backed draws empathy as opposed to thinking she's worthless. If I _had_ to kill one of them, that would be a hard choice, but probably the woman. What did you do, Hijinks?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I could not kill anyone. I avoided hitting anyone and hoped my life would be spared. If I died that would be better than the thought of killing another.


----------



## talk (Apr 14, 2010)

Hit the stroller. The loophole is that there's no actual baby _inside_ the stroller, at least according to the OP's wording.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

In stinctively hit the stroller.


----------



## autumnalone (Mar 2, 2010)

I voted for swerving and hitting the woman, but this is all purely in a scenario where I'm playing through the whole situation in my mind. I know my options; I'm reading the poll and the circumstances and taking the time to logically analyze them before casting my vote, even though I did see the thread topic and knew that this was supposed to be a split-second decision.

In real life, I would probably instinctively swerve away from both. One way or another, it's still an obstacle to swerve around, and I wouldn't have the decision-making time to realize that avoiding both baby and older woman would result in my own death. Or, as Liminality said, I may instinctively go for the stroller since it appears at first to be an inanimate object.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Depends what the "lethal hazard" is. If it's another care coming head on, would be better to hit one of the people in front of you. I think they'd have a higher chance of living... If this really happened... I would probably have to stop and think before deciding and end up running over both. I'm no good at all making a quick decision... I really don't think I could decide in time, Se being my worst function. Of course, now that I've already read this and decided, would be better to hit the hazard (assuming its not risking anyone elses life)... I really don't want to have to go to jail. I really should choose the old woman, but I'm selfish. I don't want to have to live with that.


----------



## Hijinks (Mar 10, 2010)

talk said:


> Hit the stroller. The loophole is that there's no actual baby _inside_ the stroller, at least according to the OP's wording.



For the woman may be a homeless degenreate, and the stroller her carrying vessel for booze and nick-nacks.

Or she may be an aging babushka, and that is her progeny inside. 


It's not meant to be an easy choice. The maybebaby is one of the dynamics in play. There is no sure, happy medium. Morality vs Mortality.

You can hit the stroller and hope for the best. Turning maybebaby into maybehamburgermaybebaby. It would be a good parenting lesson regardless if the maybebaby dies. Or eliminate the gamble and aim for the woman. The baby would be too young to remember her death. Then again, is the woman to blame for putting her baby's life, and your life in harm's way? Should I be scoffing myself for even considering an alternative to self-sacrafice? But before I put my head on the chopping block, I demand a fair judgement. Something that one really doesn't have the time to make.


I'd choose to selfishly motor down the woman, citing her stupidity as my justification.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

if i had a split second to think, i'd kill the dumbass lady. maybe even on purpose.

really, i probably wouldn't think at all, and accidentally "swerve both" and die.

really really, i can't even drive.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Depends what the "lethal hazard" is. If it's another care coming head on, would be better to hit one of the people in front of you. I think they'd have a higher chance of living... If this really happened... I would probably have to stop and think before deciding and end up running over both. I'm no good at all making a quick decision... I really don't think I could decide in time, Se being my worst function. Of course, now that I've already read this and decided, would be better to hit the hazard (assuming its not risking anyone elses life)... I really don't want to have to go to jail. I really should choose the old woman, but I'm selfish. I don't want to have to live with that.


This is about instinct, not decision making.

No one wants to murder, go to jail, or end up dead or severely injured - what does your gut/brain end at in a split second?

'Lethal hazard' is pretty self explanatory, you're either gonna get killed or severely injured, the actual hazard will not change the concequence of driving into it.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Liminality said:


> This is about instinct, not decision making.
> 
> No one wants to murder, go to jail, or end up dead or severely injured - what does your gut/brain end at in a split second?
> 
> 'Lethal hazard' is pretty self explanatory, you're either gonna get killed or severely injured, the actual hazard will not change the concequence of driving into it.


I'm an Ni dominant, I never act on instinct, it has to be a carefully made decision (becuase of this I'm not really a good driver). I can't stop analyzing any more than I can stop my heart from beating. If I don't have time to decide, I probably just panic and don't do anything (well I'd slam on the brakes but that wouldn't be enough)... which means keep going straight. Of course, realistically I would have already planned ahead and decided what I would do and would be prepared to act on that decision in a split second, not questioning it becuase I'd already decided it beforehand, so I'd probably run into the hazard.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

You know, if I was in a split second situation like this, I doubt I'd be able to think about the moral implications of choosing different options. I'd probably just swerve out of the way completely and kill myself purely because of reflexes.


----------



## Tatl33 (Apr 26, 2010)

I'd hit the baby stroller. Mainly because you didn't actually say there was a baby in the stroller. The women could of just been out taking the stroller for some fresh air.


----------



## Tatl33 (Apr 26, 2010)

I'd hit the baby stroller. Mainly because you didn't actually say there was a baby in the stroller. The women could of just been out taking the stroller for some fresh air.


----------



## Immortal Beloved (Jun 1, 2010)

In a split second, I chose to save myself. I feel completely narcissistic, but that's what I'd probably do. After all, why the heck are they in the pathway of my vehicle!


----------



## Aether (Apr 27, 2010)

It's the woman's fault for crossing the road without looking, so I swerve to hit her. If it's my fault for going too fast or not paying attention to the road then I'd spare both and be killed. But I suppose the point of the thread is that you don't have time to acknowledge who's fault it is...I guess if the lethal hazard was ominous enough for me to realise I'd be dead if I swerved into it in that split second, then I'd probably hit the woman anyway...I can imagine self preservation to be pretty instinctual.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Obviously the noble thing would be to avoid them both, but I would probably either do that or crash into the woman, reasoning that she would at least have some chance of getting out of the way and/or surviving, whilst the potential baby inside (and at this point in time, we have no idea if there is a baby in the stroller or not) does not have a chance to get out of the way and is defenceless.


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

I'd hit the stroller in the off-chance that there's no baby. And when I think about what I'd do instinctively, I'd still hit the carriage. There's no way I would sacrifice myself. Wanting to survive isn't wrong.


----------



## AutumnTiger (May 23, 2010)

talk said:


> Hit the stroller. The loophole is that there's no actual baby _inside_ the stroller, at least according to the OP's wording.


 


*I chose hitting the woman. The only time the word "lethal" was used was in the choice of not hitting anyone. I think the woman stands a chance of living, not everyone who gets hit dies. My luck though I would avoid both in a real situation and leave a wife, three children, two cats, and a dog behind!*


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

If you hit the woman she'd most likely take the stroller with her on the way down.


----------



## Kalifornia310 (Jan 7, 2010)

I WOULD HIT THE STROLLER! 


your story did not contain info validating the presence of a baby in the stroller, not to mention the old lady has a hunchback, and shes old. So im pretty sure shes a bum with a stroller full of items bums have!


yay for loopholes!!!


----------



## Aether (Apr 27, 2010)

To those saying we don't know whether a baby is in the stroller, the wording of the fourth option implies there is - "Swerve neither, killing them both, sustaining no injuries to yourself."


----------



## Kalifornia310 (Jan 7, 2010)

well since there is a baby in the stroller, i think it would be in the best interest of them both if they didnt exist.


----------



## la musa candido (Feb 19, 2010)

i voted on this before but never posted my answer. i chose hitting the woman.


----------



## talk (Apr 14, 2010)

Aether said:


> To those saying we don't know whether a baby is in the stroller, the wording of the fourth option implies there is - "Swerve neither, killing them both, sustaining no injuries to yourself."


Actually, as long as the baby is never mentioned per se, the two "beings" or "existences" that are killed could be 1) the lady and 2) just about anything else, including a chipmunk or a weird grown man that happens to be in the stroller. In a way, you could even say that it's the stroller itself that's being killed. Heck, according to the wording on the poll, it IS the stroller that's possibly being killed. What a dilemma.

Of course, I understand it's an actual baby that's being implied here.


----------



## FrozenFire (Aug 18, 2009)

Split-second decision: "Swerve, hitting the woman, sustain minor injuries to yourself."

If I could, I would keep myself alive, while at the same time preserving the life of a baby, who still has his/her whole life ahead of him/her.


----------



## Lady K (Oct 13, 2009)

This decision is actually a lot easier than you'd think. When you're in that moment, and you have a choice to hit the people, or swerve, you've got a split second. Natural reflexes, if you have quick ones, are going to be split second, no time to think. You're going to swerve to avoid them, unless you're a psychopath and enjoy committing hit and runs. There won't be time for it to occur to you that you might die when you swerve. A survey like this only measures what people would _prefer_, not what would actually happen in that moment.


----------



## FrozenFire (Aug 18, 2009)

Lady K said:


> This decision is actually a lot easier than you'd think. When you're in that moment, and you have a choice to hit the people, or swerve, you've got a split second. Natural reflexes, if you have quick ones, are going to be split second, no time to think. You're going to swerve to avoid them, unless you're a psychopath and enjoy committing hit and runs. There won't be time for it to occur to you that you might die when you swerve. A survey like this only measures what people would _prefer_, not what would actually happen in that moment.


But isn't that the purpose of the poll? To see what people would prefer to do in that split second?


----------



## Jingo (Feb 2, 2010)

If I had time to choose, I'd prolly hit the woman, but if this were to happen in real life I'd probably instinctively swerve away--straight into the lethal hazard. >>; Then again as I'm thinking about it, I might rather do the lethal hazard anyway because I don't think I could live with myself if I killed someone. It is admittedly a fear of mine as I'm driving.


----------



## Deliciae (Jul 23, 2010)

Instinctively, I would probably swerve, thus, killing myself. But if I had the choice I would hit the woman, feel insanely guilty for the rest of my life, and face the consequences of not watching where I'm freaking driving.


----------



## Ming (Apr 7, 2010)

Kill the woman. Because the baby at least won't remember the pains of losing a family member. The woman will remember it forever if the baby dies, and probably will kill herself. 

Though realistically, I'd swerve myself. I just don't have the heart to kill someone.


----------



## dysnomic (Feb 22, 2011)

I would kill myself in this situation, because I believe I'm likely to be much less important than the woman is and because the baby might become better than I've ever been. I believe in miracles, so I assume I could possibly return to life alive after I've already killed myself trying to same someone. LOL.


----------



## Coonsy (Dec 22, 2010)

From the description of the woman, and assuming I cannot tell that there is indeed a baby in the stroller, I would probably swerve into the stroller believing it likely to be empty whereas I KNOW there is a person pushing it. 

However, IRL, I'd have noticed them in more than enough time to stop...a deer jumping out would be a more likely thing for me to hit, unless the woman was trying to commit suicide and doing a great job of hiding her intentions of jumping into the street. I'm always scanning for pedestrians, cars in driveways or intersections, people running red lights, and always scanning for my escape route in traffic where that may be an issue. Granted, I'm better trained and far more aware than the average driver, but I don't see the original scenario being an issue I'd have to deal with.


----------



## life support (Feb 19, 2011)

i answered to swerve both, thinking about what my instinctive reaction would be in a situation where i was oncoming a collision with a pedestrian. i would always attempt to swerve out of the way. i have never been in that situation so i cannot be certain but it appears to be something which i would do, to instinctively avoid hitting anyone. there would not be likely any thought in my mind about self-sacrifice at that point, however.


----------



## fire469 (Nov 17, 2010)

I would have swerved both and killed myself.
If I had swerved and saved the mother, the baby would have no mother. If I had swerved and saved the mother, the mother would forever grief the loss of her baby. If I had killed both, I would feel awful and whatever family they belonged to would be left without a mother and their new baby. I couldn't live with that kind of guilt... It would eat me alive.


----------



## sonicdrink (Aug 11, 2010)

I would most likely swerve, and kill myself, but one point seems to be neglected here:

What if there was no baby in the stroller? You can't see it, and if she was homeless, it may just be something she picked up to carry stuff with, you never know....


----------



## lib (Sep 18, 2010)

Hit the stroller. A ragged woman pushing a stroller. I'm a teetotaler and would have no problem with my conscience after killing some beers!


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Can't really say, but I seem to have a killer survival instinct. I doubt I'd be able to make that choice to save them both in a split second, and would probably save myself.


----------

