3 ms·
It's just a terrible article. > But unlike almost every other scheme to make roads safer, Vision doesn't try to blame the victim or the perpetrator. Oh right,
by jessriedel 10y ago
It's just a terrible article.
> But unlike almost every other scheme to make roads safer, Vision doesn't try to blame the victim or the perpetrator.
Oh right, because the car safety tech responsible for the lion's share of the lives saved over the past few decades is all about blaming the perpetrator.
- geon 10y agoI think you misread that. It is not about blaming the driver, in the sense that we all know driver will continue to drive poorly. So if we want change, we can't just blame the bad drivers and go on designing cars and roads the same way. Instead we need to design the roads, knowing that bad drivers will be using them. We in Sweden have some of the worlds highest standards for drivers tests. You could blame bad drivers and raise the standards even more. But you know what? Some people will drive without even having a license. You can't stop people like that unless you ban cars altogether.
- jessriedel 10y agoNo, I think you misread me. I am not arguing that we should do more blaming, I am arguing the writer is wrong to assert that this is some miraculous new insight. Most lives saved in recent decades have come from improved safety tech, which has nothing to do with blame and everything to do with minimizing the bad effects of bad driving.