SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jalopnik has a story about how the Norwegian capital, Oslo, recorded only one death on its roads in 2019.
Speed limit laws and reducing the very presence of cars in the city center and downtown areas have resulted in a very aggressive, downward trend of traffic-related fatalities in the Nordic country's capital city. There was only one traffic-related death in Oslo in all of 2019.
No children were killed in traffic in Norway last year, Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported.
There was only one road-related death of a pedestrian, cyclist or child in 2019 in Oslo. No children were killed in traffic in Norway last year, either.
Norway plans to reach "Vision Zero", and eliminate road-related deaths within four years and do more to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, serious injuries.
The only person who died last year, according to Aftenposten, was a man whose car crashed into a fence in June.
This sharp decline is due to the fact that Oslo heavily regulates places where people are allowed to drive and has set strict speed limits. The city is also very friendly towards cycling and walking.
Olso's road fatality rate for 2019 was 0.1 death per 100,000 people. American States vary between 12 and 26 per 100,000 people
(Score: 1) by pD-brane on Thursday January 16 2020, @09:48AM (1 child)
The word ideology has at least some negative connotations, which makes me believe that you think you are raising a problematic issue here. I'm not arguing the goods and bads of ideology. But I am wondering whether proponents of reducing auto traffic in cities now feel obliged to defend their ideas because of your somewhat provocative comment.
Is one allowed to have ethics still, or is that too "ideological"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 17 2020, @08:17AM
That is indeed my intent. This is a problematic issue and not just one restricted to the gaming of traffic accident statistics. Another common example is GDP, a measure of economic activity, which is often used incorrectly as a proxy for economic health or societal benefit. Forcing cars out of society to game a statistic is much like forcing society to greater activity (for example, the Broken Window fallacy) to game GDP.
And they did. For example, "Is the statistic your very purpose in life? (of course it is, why do I even need to ask?)."
Moral claims are a pretty standard refuge for dogmatic, ideological arguments. Assert the opposing viewpoint is wrong and go from there. As long as "having ethics" is actual well-thought out ethics, you're standing on good ground. But is it?