It’s not the only way. Driving dangerously is not the only option. There are many measures that we could adopt with a high degree of confidence of success that would dramatically reduce death and injury on our roads. But convenience and speed of travel dominate our thinking. We have traded better engineered and safer cars for increased speed, as much as for safety, just as we have traded better engines for more performance, not lower environmental costs. We have traded better roads for higher speeds, not just for increased safety. Here’s some low-cost ideas that would be almost certain to have benefit in terms of safety:
- Lower speed limits
- Speed and power-limited new cars
- Legal requirement for head protection of drivers and passengers
- Higher penalties for traffic offenses
- Road diets and lane-width reductions to reduce vehicle speeds
- Greater enforcement frequency of traffic behaviour transgressions
- Legislate to require hard-coded disabling of all cell-phone functions if the cell-phone is travelling above about 15km/hr
That we don’t adopt these sorts of measures is a cultural/convenience issue, not a technological one. What is meaningful is not really about human drivers Vs robot cars, but about the way we humans DO drive Vs the way that we COULD drive if we really cared enough. An alternative to public transit/feet/pedals in terms of risk reduction is for us to drive more safely. We overwhelmingly choose not to. We’re just fine with the carnage as long as it happens to someone else.
We’ve also arguably traded the increased speed of travel for distance, not for time saved. We live further than ever from our family, our friends, our jobs and our recreation.
Car/bike - on average it is about equal per hour of participation. So if I bike an hour to work, it’s about the same risk as someone driving an hour to work.
