Skip to content
by Adam Voiland
There’s a book “Drive: Why Drive the Way We Do” which covers some of these road design issues… and Stossel might be upset that removing freedom can save lives along his exact argument. That is to say, lowering speed limits, creating more inhibitive road design (to cars, that is. See also: complete streets) makes drivers more attentive, makes the street more welcoming to other uses, and doesn’t decrease travel times.
(Book link: http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307264785)
What about the rest of what Stossel says? True on the face, if you like having no privacy nor control over the system. The constant problem with privatization is that externalities are very difficult to bring back into the decision process: the sanctity of contracts, etc. Therefore, if Parisians decided they didn’t want a six-lane highway cutting across the city because they don’t like the extra congestion it adds to adjacent roads, pollution, etc., they’re SOL: the company can take them to court and win until that lease is up.
So, if you decide a priori that private benefit must be maximized and costs socialized as much as possible, business can’t be beat. Good work, Stossel.
Global boiling fuels disasters in nuclear nations
” . . . Fueled by the buildup of fossil fuel pollution, the world’s out-of-control climate is destabilizing many of the nations that control nuclear weapons, including Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Thousands have died in fires and floods, millions left homeless, and crops failed in the withering heat, the greatest the modern world has ever faced . . . “
“I still don't understand how traffic engineers are so concerned about "liability, liability, liability" for any remotely nonstandard design, and then actual, real life death traps are allowed to persist with no accountability whatsoever.”
– Jake Wegmann
In response to "Tampa, Florida: A Case Study in Saddling the Poor With Traffic Violence"