[shafyy]

> This is almost hilariously false. "Oh yeah, those words on paper? Well, they actually physically stopped me from running the red light and plowing into 4 pedestrians!"

It's very clearly proven that hitting a pedestrian with 50 km/h is exponentially more dangerous than hitting them with 30 km/h. It's very clearly proven that having physically separted bike lines prevents deaths. It's very clearly proven that other measure like speed bumps, one-way streets, smart traffic routing prevents deaths.

And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.

[arcfour]

It's very clearly proven that murder is dangerous, yet people still commit it. You still have not explained how laws stop things from happening, as if by magic.

> And I am not even going to respond to your idiotic "leftist" statement.

This says more about you than it does me. Taking the most cynical view possible, at least a for profit company has a profit motive to keep me alive unlike a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat doesn't lose their salary if traffic deaths go up. In fact, if a problem gets worse, they often receive more funding to fix it. If a government road is dangerous, you cannot easily fire the government and switch to a competitor's road.

The success you mentioned in Helsinki wasn't a triumph of law; it was a triumph of engineering. The question is not whether we want safety, but which system—a state monopoly with no financial penalty for failure, or a private entity that faces financial ruin if it kills its customers—is more likely to engender it.