3 ms·

How is a ~24x reduction in deaths per mile driven a massive failure? What would you call a success? No death, total ban on driving?

alangibson 3y ago
Another post demonstrating my point. 35K people in the US alone die in traffic every year. We have normalized this figure (see your response) as we will normalize climate deaths. What I would do about traffic deaths is irrelevant to my point.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  I find your approach arrogant; of course I understand that people die in car crashes and yet we continue to use them. Your original point was: >Yet there is zero momentum toward doing anything about those from a policy standpoint. This is clearly false. There are many effective regulations and travelling by car continues to get safer. Yes people still die, yes we already somewhat normalise people dying from e.g. air pollution (not something that will happen, we already do it) There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made. Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history.
  - alangibson 3y ago
    I should have written "fixing the problem" instead of "doing anything about those" as I did in other comments. I define "fixed" as reaching and sustaining the lower bound. So basically excluding deaths due to act of god only. > There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made. Exactly. Despite that, here we are with 35K traffic deaths a year. Here's what would actually be necessary to "fix" the problem: - 20 year project to build a tremendous amount of passenger rail - Manhattan project for self-driving cars - 10 year project to upgrade all city and highway signage to be self-driving car friendly - Close roads to human-driven cars when self-driving upgrades are ready This probably sounds crazy to you. It sounds crazy to me too. And that's why I'm blackpilled on climate change: if we can't and won't do what it takes to fix traffic or gun fatalities on a national level, we definitely won't do it for a problem several orders of magnitude more difficult on a global level. > Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history. There will be an impact. Just most likely not a positive one. It could highly negative (see post-9/11 wars), or completely insufficient (our current response to climate change).
Tiktaalik 3y ago
Success would be the number in the USA moving in the right direction (down) which it is not as it is currently rising versus other wealthy nations such as France. Success could have USA/Canada/[insert other poorly faring nation] looking more like the low casualty numbers of other wealthy nations (eg. Norway) as well. Honestly no death is a pretty good goal. Cynically one could say it's not achievable but trying is nonetheless worth while. In my jurisdiction in Canada I don't see the government even lifting a finger to implement the lowest hanging fruit of policies that would move the needle in the right direction, such is the status quo and politicization of the traffic safety issue. They're not even trying. Efforts to implement various traffic safety concepts well used elsewhere in safer jurisdictions would be politically attacked here I'm quite sure.

alangibson 3y ago

Another post demonstrating my point. 35K people in the US alone die in traffic every year. We have normalized this figure (see your response) as we will normalize climate deaths. What I would do about traffic deaths is irrelevant to my point.

jabradoodle 3y ago
I find your approach arrogant; of course I understand that people die in car crashes and yet we continue to use them. Your original point was: >Yet there is zero momentum toward doing anything about those from a policy standpoint. This is clearly false. There are many effective regulations and travelling by car continues to get safer. Yes people still die, yes we already somewhat normalise people dying from e.g. air pollution (not something that will happen, we already do it) There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made. Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history.
- alangibson 3y ago
  I should have written "fixing the problem" instead of "doing anything about those" as I did in other comments. I define "fixed" as reaching and sustaining the lower bound. So basically excluding deaths due to act of god only. > There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made. Exactly. Despite that, here we are with 35K traffic deaths a year. Here's what would actually be necessary to "fix" the problem: - 20 year project to build a tremendous amount of passenger rail - Manhattan project for self-driving cars - 10 year project to upgrade all city and highway signage to be self-driving car friendly - Close roads to human-driven cars when self-driving upgrades are ready This probably sounds crazy to you. It sounds crazy to me too. And that's why I'm blackpilled on climate change: if we can't and won't do what it takes to fix traffic or gun fatalities on a national level, we definitely won't do it for a problem several orders of magnitude more difficult on a global level. > Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history. There will be an impact. Just most likely not a positive one. It could highly negative (see post-9/11 wars), or completely insufficient (our current response to climate change).

Tiktaalik 3y ago

Success would be the number in the USA moving in the right direction (down) which it is not as it is currently rising versus other wealthy nations such as France. Success could have USA/Canada/[insert other poorly faring nation] looking more like the low casualty numbers of other wealthy nations (eg. Norway) as well. Honestly no death is a pretty good goal. Cynically one could say it's not achievable but trying is nonetheless worth while. In my jurisdiction in Canada I don't see the government even lifting a finger to implement the lowest hanging fruit of policies that would move the needle in the right direction, such is the status quo and politicization of the traffic safety issue. They're not even trying. Efforts to implement various traffic safety concepts well used elsewhere in safer jurisdictions would be politically attacked here I'm quite sure.