[flagged]
Safety standards are altogether too often designed for non-safety reasons.
If we iterated through each and every safety regulation, I wonder how many of them are actually helping safety???
I see safety procedures in New Zealand that appear to be expensive safety theatre to me where contractors are clearly incentivised to increase regulations because they get paid to enact the safety protocols.
Whenever I get a warrant-of-fitness (safety certification) for my car, it is clear that many of the rules are about safety, however it is also clear that there is no balance against the cost of those rules. I notice many cars in other countries that would not pass our safety standards, so you have to wonder exactly how unsafe other countries are (like Louisiana)?
Yes, urban policies should be also driven by the people whose very existence is threatened by unsafe trucks. You should try biking on the same road as trucks and see if your opinion changes.
And the result of the 'overregulation' is that in some European cities, there are zero pedestrian/cyclist traffic deaths yearly. How many deaths are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of capitalism?
Zero. But I also don’t understand why you conflate “logistics” with capitalism.
For reference, about 50–70 pedestrians a year in Amsterdam are injured badly enough by cyclists to need ambulance or hospital treatment.
> in some European cities, there are zero pedestrian/cyclist traffic deaths yearly
What European city has zero pedestrian deaths?
> Zero. But I also don’t understand why you conflate “logistics” with capitalism.
I don't conflate anything with anything. Logistics is perfectly capable to operate safely, but it is more expensive than unsafe operation, because it needs higher investment into technical equipment, more money for people that operate it and also lower speeds which means less 'effective' use of capital. Which means safety stands in the way of driving costs lower, which is a conflict with capitalism.