Well, I wasn't trying to debate your point, but if you insist on being huffy, Skyscrapers generally don't have windows that can be opened or easily broken, and

Well, I wasn't trying to debate your point, but if you insist on being huffy, Skyscrapers generally don't have windows that can be opened or easily broken, and very rarely have balconies. When's the last time you heard of someone going through a skyscraper window? It's a safety net. We probably couldn't string safety nets under all bridges. However, we have already been fencing them off to prevent jumpers. I'm not clear on why you are targeting convertibles specifically; I'm unaware of any special danger they pose. However, I would argue that banning cars entirely would raise our quality of life, if combined with other measures. I'll concede the river one since there are too many possibilities there to argue exhaustively. I could prevaricate on the swimming pool thing, since my parents own one and our quality of life probably would be better off without it, but not worth it. I'm not clear on enough building codes to know how much we discourage fireplaces, but most new buildings don't seem to be built with them. We appear to have invented central heating over the last several decades, which is both safer and more effective. The point being that the reason we don't implement a lot of "safety" measures is not because they "degrade the quality of our lives" but because they don't work. In fact, most of the so-called safety measures you luridly imagine actually should be done because they'd increase the quality of our lives... so really, the question is why we haven't done them, if QoL is such an important factor.