| "revolutionary" doesn't mean what people think it means. There's always someone paying a price for change; and literally no-one is willing to be at the receiving end of the stick. What people also tend to forget is that a healthy, functional democratic state doesn't protect individual interests, it protects the collective by majority vote, for better or worst. As an individual, the state will protect you in so far that your protection benefits the collective. The main difference with other forms of governance, such as a technocracy, is that you, as an individual, at least have a vote every so often and the chance to participate in an open public debate. If the majority of people are pro-cars, then a democratic society will spawn politicians and politics that are largely pro-car. That's just par for the course. The prerogative of the minority is the freedom to voice their dissent. The main reason why pro-car politics lead to half-baked policies, is because no car driving individual likes to see how their peers run over their close friends and family members. Crosswalks or bicycle lanes don't just exist to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, they also exist because a high number of traffic deaths is comes with political consequences on their part. As such, the quality of public transport, pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, or how the justice system deals with traffic incidents, is a reflection of how important the majority deems to the safety of those who aren't in a car when they are behind the wheel. At the end of the day, I feel there's a ton of cognitive dissonance involved when you are used to driving a ton of steel hurtling 20, 30 or 40 miles an hour down the road. Car constructors have made cars so much safer... for drivers and their passengers. Sadly, it often takes an accident before one starts to realize the impact and the consequences of their behavior in reality. That doesn't mean this isn't true for pedestrians and cyclists as well: you can't reasonably expect that every driver is going to yield every single time. The crux is to approach a workable balance in that shared responsibility through sensible policies. And that's an ever-lasting exercise. Throwing your arms up and giving up fundamental freedoms in order for a technocratic regime to make sweeping policy changes, that's just throwing the good away with the bad parts. |
Sadly, I think the goal of implementing policies in support of "the collective" largely got replaced with populism and catering to and never ever doing anything to anger our holy cow "the economy"[0]. IMO the politicians in my parent's time where held to a higher standard than the general populace and that's why they could implement policies that, while maybe frustrating to people in the short term (remember when seatbelts weren't a thing? I don't!), lead to a positive outcome in the long run and people instinctively knew this and trusted their elected representatives.
Today... well Donald Trump sits in the White House and populists are flooding european governments, so of course nothing can get done if nobody is willing to make principled decisions.
[0] Maybe I should make it clear that the people who speak for "the economy" are oftentimes a small minority of leaders of very big organizations not actually representing the bulk of what makes up the economy of a country.