3 ms·
At the time he was writing, cars dominating traffic was relatively new. He was talking about the next year, not the next hundred years. The greater purpose of
by netcan 12y ago
At the time he was writing, cars dominating traffic was relatively new. He was talking about the next year, not the next hundred years.
The greater purpose of the article is (IMO) to point out bullshitting, "our unwillingness to face facts and our consequent readiness to make gestures which are known in advance to be useless."
People talk about reducing road deaths. One life when it is a specific person is supposedly worth any cost but in practice we agree to a system that strikes a balance between death and convenience. All sorts of things are possible at a cost, but we often BS because we don't want the cost and we also don't want to know that we weren't willing to pay it.
- navait 12y agoWell, we introduced the VSL(Value of a Statistical Life) for a reason. I would quite say that the government openly says saving a life if only worth a certain amount, if you read real policy documents.
- baddox 12y agoWho supposes that one life is worth any cost? Clearly no one even values their own life infinitely. If they did, for every decision they would choose the least risky option.
- revelation 12y agoAnd your argument is to give the speeders, the drunkards and the plain unsafe, unobservant drivers free reign? As it stands right now? We're not even close to approaching the point where any further safety measures would have to be balanced with some time or convenience metric.
- Dylan16807 12y ago>in practice we agree to a system that strikes a balance between death and convenience Not necessarily. Being unable to travel also causes deaths. Even if you value lives infinitely higher than convenience itself, you end up in a similar spot.