author here. Didn't find out until just a few minutes ago that this recent, random, draft post ended up on the HN front page. Huzzah. > My biggest question is:

author here. Didn't find out until just a few minutes ago that this recent, random, draft post ended up on the HN front page. Huzzah. > My biggest question is: is the author arguing that there should be spaced bollards along literally every sidewalk in the country/world, and around all edges of every parking lot? Absolutely not, not even close. I'm suggesting that wherever there are cars parking while pointed at buildings, considering them as you would a loaded gun. If you don't feel comfortable with them pointed at your building, being willing to drive _through_ the thing, if the vehicle operator makes a mistake, _add a bollard or a large rock or a strong art installation or anything that keeps the vehicle from being able to drive into the building_. I'm further condemning the entire American transportation planning industry that _expends effort to prevent individuals from adding safety to their own paths, routes, commuting habits_. It's interesting that you go straight to costs, which makes me think you don't viscerally feel the danger _you_ are routinely exposed to by unprotected exposure to cars. Otherwise, you'd get it. That said, the costs of _not_ doing anything are well-established. Entire industries exist to prevent occasional bad things from happening, and their ethical standing is sound. Insurance of all kinds, fire extinguishers, fire detectors, fire suppression systems, seat belts, air bags, guard rails, term life insurance plans, cargo insurance, and more. It's also ugly, however, to see car parts and oils and fuels sprayed about an intersection. It's also ugly to see the human carnage that cars leave behind them. I don't like seeing the insides of a body on the outside, spread across the ground.