4 ms·

I half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have

by thworp 3y ago

I half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile). Of course, copying these countries will take time, especially because half the problem is the terrible drivers education and lax enforcement which precludes quite a few measures. Things that could be done right now are: * designing roads to calm traffic (bends and such): highly effective at reducing pedestrian/cyclist accidents * building proper separated bike paths * mandatory inspections in all states. a non-negligible % of accidents are caused by defective vehicles * mandating and actually enforcing minimum following distance on highways * banning modifications like steel plate grills (basically a human-crushing ram) * scrapping the entire tax and regulation scheme that lead to the size wars in trucks and SUVs Then there are things like replacing more STOP signs with YIELD, roundabouts, giving bike paths green lights together with turning traffic (requires drivers to look in their blindspot and yield) and lane discipline. Those broadly reduce frustration and fatigue which helps people stay calm.

RC_ITR 3y ago
> half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile). We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?' Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?
- thworp 3y ago
  First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed to different measure which might work but have side effects. That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    >That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). >So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it. I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried? Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?

by thworp 3y ago

RC_ITR 3y ago

> half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile). We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?' Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?

thworp 3y ago
First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed to different measure which might work but have side effects. That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  >That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). >So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it. I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried? Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?