3 ms·

And we also have to consider how much we as a society lose by not having a taxi system with x amount of danger. 1000 people gaining a little bit quickly outwei

And we also have to consider how much we as a society lose by not having a taxi system with x amount of danger. 1000 people gaining a little bit quickly outweighs 1 person losing a lot (at least from a purely utilitarian perspective)

harry8 9y ago
A lot of times when this is brought up it isn't mentioned there is an assumption here. That we are already at the efficient frontier and any move is necessarily a trade off. In my experience that assumption is usually false. There are usually ways where you can actually reduce the amount of danger and the number of people exposed to it and increase the number of people getting a more efficient service at the same time. Look for these outward movements of the efficient frontier. The opportunity is almost always there. When we're really at the efficient frontier of what is possible and have no choice but to make tradeoffs let's say so loudly because something has gone very, very right to get to that point.
- mc32 9y ago
  Agreed. Like Vision Zero[1] which some municipalities have instituted as initiatives to reduce the number of traffic fatalities in their jurisdictions through a variety of measures with the obvious goal of reducing such to the absolute minimum. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
  - slavik81 9y ago
    Vision Zero is a project that's unable to come to terms with its own beliefs. Their stated goal is zero traffic fatalities no matter the economic cost, and yet they don't actually embrace policies that would reduce fatalities to zero. Their policies seem to merely be the same old stuff you'd see out of traditional planning, but with a little higher cost assigned to injuries and fatalities. That's good, and it plays nicely to your point that the status quo isn't always at the right balance point, but the hypocrisy is off-putting.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Excellent point. While you’ll never get to zero, the current state of things is probably far from optimal. The airline industry provides an extreme example. They go years at a time with no fatalities, while still providing almost ludicrously cheap service.

harry8 9y ago

A lot of times when this is brought up it isn't mentioned there is an assumption here. That we are already at the efficient frontier and any move is necessarily a trade off. In my experience that assumption is usually false. There are usually ways where you can actually reduce the amount of danger and the number of people exposed to it and increase the number of people getting a more efficient service at the same time. Look for these outward movements of the efficient frontier. The opportunity is almost always there. When we're really at the efficient frontier of what is possible and have no choice but to make tradeoffs let's say so loudly because something has gone very, very right to get to that point.

mc32 9y ago
Agreed. Like Vision Zero[1] which some municipalities have instituted as initiatives to reduce the number of traffic fatalities in their jurisdictions through a variety of measures with the obvious goal of reducing such to the absolute minimum. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
- slavik81 9y ago
  Vision Zero is a project that's unable to come to terms with its own beliefs. Their stated goal is zero traffic fatalities no matter the economic cost, and yet they don't actually embrace policies that would reduce fatalities to zero. Their policies seem to merely be the same old stuff you'd see out of traditional planning, but with a little higher cost assigned to injuries and fatalities. That's good, and it plays nicely to your point that the status quo isn't always at the right balance point, but the hypocrisy is off-putting.
mikeash 9y ago
Excellent point. While you’ll never get to zero, the current state of things is probably far from optimal. The airline industry provides an extreme example. They go years at a time with no fatalities, while still providing almost ludicrously cheap service.