3 ms·
> But I do think it’s wrong to put no value on the reason behind the popularity of that visceral reaction. Not being killed is also a very popular visceral rea
by david-gpu 2y ago
> But I do think it’s wrong to put no value on the reason behind the popularity of that visceral reaction.
Not being killed is also a very popular visceral reason for pedestrians and cyclists to want cars to slow down in our cities, and for motor vehicle regulations to address the yearly carnage they cause every year.
What value should we give to their desire of not being killed, and how should it be weighted against drivers' desire to drive what they want, where they want, when they want, and how they want?
Just a fun experiment: try replacing "driving a car" with "stabbing random people on the street" or any other activity that involves people killing around three people per 100,000 population every year in your country. It's interesting how our perception changes when we get out of the context of motonormativity.
- singleshot_ 2y agoIt’s a terrible metaphor but if everyone had to stab someone in the morning and the evening in order for the economy to even begin to function, we would pretty soon get over it. Upton Sinclair and all that.
- immibis 2y agoWhat if the economy was built that way by stabbing industry lobbyists?
- actionablefiber 2y agoWe had a perfectly functioning economy prior to car domination and all the alternatives have progressed by incredible leaps and bounds in the time since as well.
- joshlemer 2y agoThis analogy fails because there's nothing about our economy that specifically demands that people drive cars that can drive over 150km/h. They would be able to commute exactly the same as they do today, if their cars had speed governors.
- david-gpu 2y agoOther economies work just fine with far fewer pedestrian deaths. We don't need to sacrifice our neighbors in the altar of making mo' money.