So, per the article, they suggest the response should be to: "eliminate all instances where a driver could hit a pedestrian at a speed greater than 15 to 20 mp

So, per the article, they suggest the response should be to: "eliminate all instances where a driver could hit a pedestrian at a speed greater than 15 to 20 mph, even if one or both parties make a mistake. This means in places where people will be out and about (i.e. streets), cars and trucks must either be kept out entirely, or must not travel faster than 20 miles per hour. Period." In the US, this would require an immense amount of infrastructure building and/or an increase in the amount of time people spend in vehicles (due to lower speed travel). Either, with the current status quo, would raise carbon emissions. In 2016, 5987 pedestrians died in the US [0]. And there were 37806 motor vehicle related deaths the same year [1]. Engaging in trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending or increasing the amount of time vehicles spend at low/inefficient speeds will almost certainly kill more people (indirectly) than it saves. I am absolutely for public transit and other infrastructure improvements, but the fact is that preventing deaths just isn't a compelling argument in its favor with the relatively small amount of deaths - substantially more people die from the flu than traffic accidents [2]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm