General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

It has been tried in other places with substantial harm as a result:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.4857985

As for "generally increased convenience" being acceptable for decreased safety, where do you draw the line? Should we undersize bridges and risk them collapsing? Should we reduce water testing? These are all things that would make life easier for us, but we do not accept.  I have no idea why roads are the one area that it's okay to kill people to make life more convenient.

Are those other places equivalent to the 400-series highways and their current traffic patterns?

As for where we draw the line, we should first realize that we always draw the line somewhere.  Roads aren’t the only place we do it.  We literally do it everywhere because resources are always limited.   So any sort of slippery slope argument is just silly.

See the examples I gave, for water testing, we do not accept any tainted water ever, when it does happen, we stop, and fix it.  We don't accept any bridges falling ever, when we do, we investigate and fix it.  Would you argue it's a slipper slope to say no bridge should ever collapse?

It doesn't take infinite cost to consider tainted water and collapsing bridges unacceptable in our society, neither would it be an infinite cost to consider traffic deaths unacceptable in our society.