4 ms·

> 16 dead kids of course every preventable death is too much and we should be aiming at zero...but 16 doesn't seem that much? I would have guessed more for sur

> 16 dead kids of course every preventable death is too much and we should be aiming at zero...but 16 doesn't seem that much? I would have guessed more for sure.

mschuster91 4y ago
In the last few years, the residential street where I live had multiple accidents caused by inattentive or plain racing drivers. One child ended up in hospital for weeks after being run over by a speeding car, a woman ended up dead after being run over by a lorry, and from my window I can see dangerous behavior from motorists alllll the time. Not good if you have three schools, (at least) two kindergartens and a sports area used by all of them. The problem is, the street is fucking wide - it used to be the supply road for a beer factory and only got developed into pure residential and schools zoning two decades ago, and that seems to invite people to not give a fuck.
burnished 4y ago
It does seem a little hypocritical to follow up 'should aim for zero children dead from being ran over by vehicles' with 'but 16 is fine'
- LeanderK 4y ago
  I don't think so. I would have said the same about other statistics. In the end it defies my intuition, which is interesting given that the possibility of getting run over is pretty present in every day life of many children. You have to keep in mind that zero is pretty much impossible because the risk is present all long as we drive, so we should aim for zero but won't get to zero.
  - burnished 4y ago
    Then we are not actually aiming for zero. I don't think it is wise to engage in such blatant sophistry when discussing public policy.
    - LeanderK 4y ago
      of course you're aiming for zero. But you can't just wish it, there are constraints that arise from our reality. It's all a story of risks and costs, from crossing the street, driving a bicycle to using electricity. You can even die from the flu. In the end dying is unfortunately part of living and in some way unavoidable. A little bit of risks repeated a lot goes a long way. Calling my comment sophistry is a little bit dramatic I think ;) especially considering you started this argument by twisting my statement about 16 dead kids being fine public policy should be rational and evidence based
- chopin 4y ago
  If we aim for zero (no matter what) society grinds to screeching halt. Not even considering constitutional aspects. Especially the Western societies should get back to a healthy risk perception. In my opinion (I live in Germany) we've gone overboard.
TurboHaskal 4y ago
16 is sad and very unfortunate. There is a massive outcry and countries passing anti-constitutional laws aimed to protect women that are victims of domestic violence with similar casualty rates. Maybe we should let kids vote so politicians pay some attention to them.

> 16 dead kids of course every preventable death is too much and we should be aiming at zero...but 16 doesn't seem that much? I would have guessed more for sure.

mschuster91 4y ago

In the last few years, the residential street where I live had multiple accidents caused by inattentive or plain racing drivers. One child ended up in hospital for weeks after being run over by a speeding car, a woman ended up dead after being run over by a lorry, and from my window I can see dangerous behavior from motorists alllll the time. Not good if you have three schools, (at least) two kindergartens and a sports area used by all of them. The problem is, the street is fucking wide - it used to be the supply road for a beer factory and only got developed into pure residential and schools zoning two decades ago, and that seems to invite people to not give a fuck.

burnished 4y ago

It does seem a little hypocritical to follow up 'should aim for zero children dead from being ran over by vehicles' with 'but 16 is fine'

LeanderK 4y ago
I don't think so. I would have said the same about other statistics. In the end it defies my intuition, which is interesting given that the possibility of getting run over is pretty present in every day life of many children. You have to keep in mind that zero is pretty much impossible because the risk is present all long as we drive, so we should aim for zero but won't get to zero.
- burnished 4y ago
  Then we are not actually aiming for zero. I don't think it is wise to engage in such blatant sophistry when discussing public policy.
  - LeanderK 4y ago
    of course you're aiming for zero. But you can't just wish it, there are constraints that arise from our reality. It's all a story of risks and costs, from crossing the street, driving a bicycle to using electricity. You can even die from the flu. In the end dying is unfortunately part of living and in some way unavoidable. A little bit of risks repeated a lot goes a long way. Calling my comment sophistry is a little bit dramatic I think ;) especially considering you started this argument by twisting my statement about 16 dead kids being fine public policy should be rational and evidence based
chopin 4y ago
If we aim for zero (no matter what) society grinds to screeching halt. Not even considering constitutional aspects. Especially the Western societies should get back to a healthy risk perception. In my opinion (I live in Germany) we've gone overboard.

TurboHaskal 4y ago

16 is sad and very unfortunate. There is a massive outcry and countries passing anti-constitutional laws aimed to protect women that are victims of domestic violence with similar casualty rates. Maybe we should let kids vote so politicians pay some attention to them.