And what the cost is. We can reduce traffic fatalities to zero by lowering speed limits to 25 and building cars like tanks, but we don't. Why not? It's not a reasonable expense to achieve the goal.
Everyone wants to do better. Just because people don't agree on means doesn't mean they are cold hearted bastards or something.
==We can reduce traffic fatalities to zero by lowering speed limits to 25 and building cars like tanks, but we don't. Why not? It's not a reasonable expense to achieve the goal.==
Except we have lowered speed limits and mandated security measures on cars, just not to the arbitrary level you stated. We followed scientific studies that showed positive results of lower speed limits in certain areas and implemented car safety requirements for manufacturers.
Right, but 40,000 people still died from traffic accidents in the U.S. in 2017. To get that number to zero, the U.S. might have to drastic things that probably wouldn't be a good tradeoff. The existence of a discussion about tradeoffs and costs doesn't mean that some people are anti-safe-driving or something.
Sure, but just because you took an unrelated example to the extreme to show that everything can't be done doesn't mean nothing should be done.
With car accidents, a problem was identified, scientific research was consulted to craft solutions, they were implemented, the numbers improved. This is likely because everyone, regardless of income level faces the risks of driving. Bad schools can be avoided by having more money and living in an area with good schools.
Everyone wants to do better. Just because people don't agree on means doesn't mean they are cold hearted bastards or something.