Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jbangert 3641 days ago
This argument will seem a bit more empathetic if you don't consider it as killing 59 people outright, but increasing risk factors so that on average 59 additional deaths occurred(unclear over what timeframe and what the methodology is). Spread out over the world population (we share the same air) that is a relatively short amount of lifetime.

On the other hand, consuming more fuel, making car ownership more expensive etc also carries real costs. People can't get work done, spend more of that lifetime tAking less efficient means of transportation, doing less enjoyable things like waiting on a greyhound bus, etc.

The sensationalist 'caused x deaths' headlights are very hard to reason With and usually one sided. That being said, car emissions are still a problem and there is a reason for these(and other public health) rules -- the response should perhaps be a little bit less emotional though. ( there are plenty of scandals that are probably more worthy of this emotional response, e.g. Illegal dumping or contamination, unhealthy foods, antibiotic overuse, etc.)