Not desensitized just different stats and impacting how they are seen as tangible. For example, the auto stats translate into me, a mid-40s adult living in a very car dependent part of the US, having only known of a few people to die my entire life (first hand, actual people I knew - was in high school when I had a much larger social network, so was statistically more likely to encounter this back then.) I don't know many people that have been severely injured either. Yet, those scooters began and instant and constant nuisance that many people across various social groups share. I'm not arguing against your point, just saying how perceptions get skewed based on how frequently you encounter them. It's easy for people to think driving is kind of safe when you and everyone you know drives daily without much consequence. The real statistics and magnitude (death vs annoyance) don't really mean much.
> Yeah, it's pretty crazy how desensitized we collectively are to cars constantly killing people.
A bit hyperbolic, don't you think? The average is 1 for every 100,000,000 miles driven. And more like 1 in 600,000,000 if you are talking about people killed by cars who were not themselves in said car.
We can see by comparing the US to peer nations that most of these deaths are preventable -- Sweden, where Vision Zero originated, has like 80% fewer traffic fatalities. We just don't have the political will to do it.
The very fact that you think this is hyperbolic is what I'm talking about. 40,000 dead in the US each year and the response is a collective shrug.
> The very fact that you think this is hyperbolic is what I'm talking about. 40,000 dead in the US each year and the response is a collective shrug.
Nobody is saying we should not try to improve the statistic. About 1 in 100 deaths are because of a car accident. But it becomes hyperbole when people suggest we should implement draconian measures on what is probably the single most useful appliance in the history of mankind. You perceive as a shrug the fact that most people understand perspective.
Most Americans flip out at things like replacing street parking with bus lanes, or allowing for higher density zoning than detached single family houses in large lots.
We're a million miles away from "draconian" measures. I've been to Sweden a couple times and they're not exactly laboring under the authoritarian boot of multi-modal transport. If anything, the fact that most places in the US de facto mandate car ownership to do anything is far, far more draconian than providing residents with a variety of options.
I don't deny that cars are tremendously useful, but we've nevertheless managed to overuse them.
A speed governor is not draconian. Limiting things to the maximum speed on federal roads would be a start. Further location based speed enforcement would require some investments.
Yes scooters blocking sidewalks is a problem, but cars straight up killing people is clearly like 1000x worse.