Comment 115784

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted December 22, 2015 at 12:18:40 in reply to Comment 115782

You missed the whole point of the article.

The goal is not to decide whose "fault" it was, but to design streets to be safe (i.e. fault-tolerant).

If we were satisfied with assigning blame for injuries and deaths, our world would be a far more dangerous place.

We're not content with "train and blame" in dealing with industrial accidents or the design of consumer products, and we shouldn't be happy with the thousands of deaths and injuries our street designs reliably produce each and every year. That is the idea behind "Vision Zero".

To take just one (obvious) example: modern cars are designed with all sorts of passive and active safety features to protect their occupants from collisions ... even if those collisions are the fault of the driver! Freeways are designed with barriers and controlled access to protect motorists. Would you really like to go back to the safety standards of 1950s era automobiles and just rely on drivers being careful instead? The big drop in deaths and injuries for motorists since the 1950s is largely due to safer vehicles and safer street designs (for motorists).

Would you like to fly in planes with no safety features, other than big stickers reminding pilots and mechanics to "be careful"?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-12-22 12:21:01

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools