|
|
|
|
|
by AmericanChopper
945 days ago
|
|
I think policies like vision zero are a complete governance anti-pattern. When you commit to a goal that is very literally impossible, it can be used as a justification for just about any action that would move the needle closer to the never-achievable target, no matter how insane that action might be. It is the complete opposite of sensible risk management, and serves only the politicians who find it difficult to publicly admit the fact that some level of risk must be accepted, which isn’t something I think the public should encourage. It also removes any level of accountability for actually having to achieve a goal, because no achievable goal was ever defined to begin with. |
|
Of course, if everyone agrees that a goal isn't achievable (or it's not worth the effort to achieve it), then it will never be achieved...