> I guess we have a significant philosophical difference Yeah, if arguing in good faith or not is a philosophical difference. > we do insist on proper lightin

> I guess we have a significant philosophical difference Yeah, if arguing in good faith or not is a philosophical difference. > we do insist on proper lighting of designated pedestrian crossings Really? Even when two residential streets (which I specifically mentioned) cross? Nope. Show me the statute or GTFO. Restricting this only to "designated crossings" makes it circular. > Pretty sure walking + more street lights is far more environmentally friendly than driving + no street lights at all. This isn't about a future/hypothetical world where more walk and fewer drive. It's about the here and now where the two mix. Another red herring. It would be nice if you or the other "let the little people drive for me" folks could write a whole paragraph without a fallacy. > I approach it in much the same way as a woman would deal with the threat of being raped You're seriously trying to compare auto accidents to rape? I already anticipated that bullshit, e.g. by mentioning the third-party risk. An accident is not the same as an assault. Rape is horrible and auto accidents are horrible, but they're different in many ways. That's a false analogy, appealing to emotion rather than reason, and I won't dignify it or you by engaging further.