252
The hierarchy of controls tells us that we should physically remove the hazard (Eliminate Cars). But, we choose the least effective option, protection (Helmets and bright colors) (programming.dev)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

There are many players involved and each has a different appetite for risk and access to different controls for the risk encountered.

Suppose for example, you're an automobile manufacturer. Then the success of campaigns to eliminate automobiles is a risk to your business. To control that risk, you may support politicians who advocate for your interest. (IE the Ford gov in Ontario CA, there is a large base of auto mfgs in Ontario)

On the other hand, you might be a person who needs to get to the other side of the street. In this scenario, if your appetite for risk is large enough you can don PPE and attempt a crossing or eliminate the risk completely and not cross at all.

Supporting local advocacy groups is most effective in areas where there aren't embedded interests like the Ontario example. In fact, most cities/regions don't have an embedded automobile manufacturing or related base and would be well-suited to grass roots advocacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Suppose for example, you’re an automobile manufacturer. Then the success of campaigns to eliminate automobiles is a risk to your business.

    We should come up with a society where people's individual interests aren't bad for society. Somehow. Perhaps magic?

    But yeah there's a lot of "but I need my orphan grinding machines to sell that's my whole business" and I don't have a lot of sympathy, because those machines are dangerous and bad. Like, just stop selling mega-suvs or single use plastic junk or whatever. I'd be happy for the state to pay them to do something else instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    While potentially helpful, I don't think magic is required. We can do this with the tools and society available. Instead of focusing attention on places like Detroit MI, Windsor ON, or Houston TX which have a strong embedded interests, local advocacy in any and all areas without a strong embedded interest (literally anywhere else) could shift the economy away from "orphan crushing machines" without the input of these parties.

    Then once the "rest of the world" has options beyond driving, these regions with embedded interests would have less to lose from embracing alternatives as well. I think about it like the US campaign in the Pacific in WWII: occupy the regions which the Japanese empire needs to run their war machine BEFORE engaging with the mainland.

    The journey will be long and challenging with many set backs and failures, but by showing up everyday and fighting we can achieve victories.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent