4 ms·

In so much as you can't get close to zero without radically changing how we build and live in this country you are correct, but the question is why wouldn't you

In so much as you can't get close to zero without radically changing how we build and live in this country you are correct, but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths ? Not only would you be removing the 11th leading cause of death, you would be significantly improving our environmental footprint and literally saving trillions of dollars in unnecessary infrastructure spending.

arcticbull 7y ago
> ... but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths? Well, if you target "zero" of anything with a large enough N, you end up well past the point of diminishing returns, and avoiding that last death may have a price tag truly outsized relative to the benefit. It may even cause more deaths in other areas. For instance, after 9/11 security at airports was tightened massively ("targeting zero") and this caused a lot more people to drive short distances, which is much riskier than flying, which in turn caused way, way more deaths than all of 9/11. Micro, achieved, macro, failed. Bruce Schneier covers this well in an essay titled "Our Decreasing Tolerance to Risk" [1] With that in mind, I don't believe cars should exist in urban centers, but because they're a livability nightmare rather than due to the very low risk cars pose to my continued existence (you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident). [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident Which sounds like very little. But life expectancy is now around 80 years. That means that your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 0.8%. That's high enough that, in a country of 330 million people, it adds up to a problem that's worth trying to solve. Look, I mostly agree with you. But the "low risk" argument in your last paragraph isn't as effective as you think.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Because zero deaths, while a good thing, is not the only good thing. Are you also going to prohibit smoking? Bad eating habits? Or do only traffic deaths matter to you? Not dying matters. I mean, duh, it really matters. But in the time when you're not dead, it's nice to be able to do some things besides just not dying. Among the things I want to do with my life and my time, walking to work in winter is very low on the list. So is waiting at a tram stop in a blizzard.

arcticbull 7y ago

> ... but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths? Well, if you target "zero" of anything with a large enough N, you end up well past the point of diminishing returns, and avoiding that last death may have a price tag truly outsized relative to the benefit. It may even cause more deaths in other areas. For instance, after 9/11 security at airports was tightened massively ("targeting zero") and this caused a lot more people to drive short distances, which is much riskier than flying, which in turn caused way, way more deaths than all of 9/11. Micro, achieved, macro, failed. Bruce Schneier covers this well in an essay titled "Our Decreasing Tolerance to Risk" [1] With that in mind, I don't believe cars should exist in urban centers, but because they're a livability nightmare rather than due to the very low risk cars pose to my continued existence (you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident). [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident Which sounds like very little. But life expectancy is now around 80 years. That means that your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 0.8%. That's high enough that, in a country of 330 million people, it adds up to a problem that's worth trying to solve. Look, I mostly agree with you. But the "low risk" argument in your last paragraph isn't as effective as you think.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Because zero deaths, while a good thing, is not the only good thing. Are you also going to prohibit smoking? Bad eating habits? Or do only traffic deaths matter to you? Not dying matters. I mean, duh, it really matters. But in the time when you're not dead, it's nice to be able to do some things besides just not dying. Among the things I want to do with my life and my time, walking to work in winter is very low on the list. So is waiting at a tram stop in a blizzard.