> But they've invited themselves in and taken over the place. Cars are material objects. People take them where they want them. People want them in the citie

> But they've invited themselves in and taken over the place. Cars are material objects. People take them where they want them. People want them in the cities. There was no great propaganda wave that "tricked" people into doing this. Cars were better. People went with what was better for them, personally. > Most crashes are fundamentally caused by designs that encourage them. Most fatalities involve alcohol or drugs. Perhaps we just shouldn't allow the sale of alcohol in cities? At least to me, that would be very welcome, and is a necessary part of any honest "vision zero." > We know drivers speed, we know they text while driving, we know signs and even enforcement doesn't work etc etc. Yet we know they can also drive millions of miles this way before causing a single incident. > that must disallow crashes and people being hit by cars from being possible in the first place. You can have that. You're just going to have to sacrifice nearly every other modern convenience that people move into cities to experience in the first place. > Narrower, more winding streets, cobblestone, speed humps and other calming surfaces, more vegetation, raised crosswalks, dedicated and physically segregated (by bollards, concrete blocks etc) spaces for pedestrians, people on bikes etc etc. And that's the end of your federal road money. As long as your community can afford all of this on it's own, you can do it, if you can't, you must find a compromise. This idea that the compromise _must_ be thrown away because a few people can't see any other way forward is ridiculous. Particularly on "hacker news."