Walking outside can result in deaths. Should we ban that too? What a silly premise. Obviously cars confer a lot of benefits. They are fast, and in areas that a

Walking outside can result in deaths. Should we ban that too? What a silly premise. Obviously cars confer a lot of benefits. They are fast, and in areas that are not high-density, they save time relative to ANY alternative (walking, biking, buses, trains) and therefore drastically improve your quality of life. They don't require you to wait on someone else's schedule, especially given the often inconsistent timing of buses. They don't require you to risk sitting down on dirty seats (6-year-old girl stabbed by uncapped needle on bus: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden-two-bus-seats-9873386/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/08/girl-6-injected-needle-hidden...). They don't require you to risk personal injury (40 to 60 teens rob train: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...). They let you travel all over, including away from cities, and therefore give you a greater degree of freedom than the reach of fixed rails or transit systems that are limited to cities. Yes cars can cause deaths. So do a lot of other things. But the rate of vehicle-caused injuries/deaths has been dropping sharply since the 80s (see CDC data). It will continue to drop as backup cameras, lane departure prevention, collision detection, collision avoidance, and other assistance features become ubiquitous or required. Nothing is ever perfect, and this is the fundamental reason why efforts like Vision Zero are flawed. Zero deaths is not the goal, and generally any such absolute goal is unrealistic. We get massive benefits from fast, private point-to-point transport. Let's not forget that and work to retain those benefits, instead of damaging the benefits of vehicles with low speed limits and other 'road diet' suggestions.