• hanekam@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      We do our best to limit damage under the assumption that nearly everyone should be allowed a licence and a car, that’s not the same. A small share of drivers are responsible for the majority of fatalities, and while some of these drivers are obscure until they kill someone, many have offenses, lose their licences but are allowed back on the roads because we see the right to drive a car as sacred

      • wischi@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the only assumption. We could pass laws that would forbid driving faster that 50km/h. It would be a lot safer. But people value (up to a point) their time more than their lifes - which is fine as long as we understand that that’s what’s happening.

    • wischi@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      It depends what you mean by “our best”. We try to reduce the risk without sacrificing too much. Wearing a seatbelt is trivial, because there are basically no downsides. We could also half all the speed limits - that would reduce the risk a ton. But we don’t do that because people like to drive fast because they (up too a risk balance) value their time more than their life (sounds rough but that’s basically what it is).

      It’s the same with pandemics. Of course a lockdown prevents a lot of deaths, but at what cost? Is it worth it. We wouldn’t half all the speed limits to reduce risk?

      I’m not against lockdowns in general, for example during the first covid wave because it bought us valuable time to figure out how we proceed, but a lockdown is (figuratively and literally) high cost.

    • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      We design roadways and construct expensive intersections for the exact purpose of pedestrian safety