3 ms·
This isn’t a thing that makes sense to regulate at an individual level, like how BP tried to pass off the fact that they are destroying the environment on regul
by Shawnj2 3y ago
This isn’t a thing that makes sense to regulate at an individual level, like how BP tried to pass off the fact that they are destroying the environment on regular people for not using reusable bags or whatever. Left as is car manufacturers would be happy to put up a “Pedestrian fatality footprint” for cars and it would have 0 impact on sales. If we want those changes in how society works they need to be mandated by economics or political policy. You should not be able to insure a car that poses over a certain hazard to pedestrians for road usage.
- kcplate 3y agoAll that seems to me is some sort of pie in the sky activist notion to try and get all cars off the road. It’s not serious, reasonable, or able to be implemented. All cars pose a fatality hazard to a pedestrian.
- Shawnj2 3y agoReducing cars in large cities would be a good idea but a more basic thing is just to enforce pedestrian safety standards on vehicles. Eg. If you hit someone with a car they need to go over the hood instead of just being smashed by the front and drivers need to have sufficient visibility of pedestrians.
- rafabulsing 3y agoI don't want to strawman, but I also can't read your position as anything other than "if the risk can't be reduced to literally 0, it's not worth trying to reduce/avoid increasing it at all". There are obviously levels to risk. At the limit, I'm guessing you probably oppose someone attaching a running chainsaw to their front bumper.
- kcplate 3y agoNo. I am against any regulatory, government legal action, or mandate that will have zero measurable effect on the problem it tries to solve.