I feel like this is blurring the lines a bit too much. The analogy in my metaphor would be that you're conflating "anyone who's stepped foot in a gym" (pedestri

I feel like this is blurring the lines a bit too much. The analogy in my metaphor would be that you're conflating "anyone who's stepped foot in a gym" (pedestrian/public transport users who might have ordered from Amazon a couple of times this year) with the "people who get in the octagon daily" (car drivers). I know we're several levels of nesting deep at this point, but we were not talking about the general usefulness of roads ; we were comparing the asymmetric impact of making cars safer for the people in the car vs for other people involved (eg bikes or pedestrians). > All the drivers/passengers are pedestrians too This is too wild a generalization, as you could compare either the amount of "miles traveled" or "time spent" and see that there most likely is a vast gulf between: - People who mostly do everything by car (eg the vast majority of all Americans I've met, but also true in many places including Caribbean islands with no/bad public transport) - People who almost do nothing by car (eg the vast majority of people I've met inside the walls of Paris, although Uber has surely changed the ratio) It feels like you're taking a group of people who might drive or be in a car 2 hours+ per day and walk a total of 150 steps to/from their car, vs. another group of people who might walk 8,000+ steps along streets/roads a day and get a cab to the airport once a quarter... and saying they're basically the same.