Welcome to The CRC Team Channel.
Our society goes to great lengths to make sure that people do not experience the consequences of their choices and behaviors. Is this the right approach and what can we do better?
On a podcast, there was a point brought up that the reduction of risk actually makes society less safe. A stark contrast to what one may think when you implement risk mitigation and avoidance. The complete removal of risk can make people less safe.
In many areas in the northeast, you will notice that people to a high degree no longer know the proper practices of safely crossing a road. Because of pedestrian safety laws and crosswalks, people have expanded the practice to believing that pedestrians can walk into traffic and safely make it to the other side.
Now, people should try to avoid hitting pedestrians from a moral standpoint, but the reckless behavior encouraged by the view that pedestrians always have the right of way. Not surprising that the number of pedestrian deaths are higher each year.
The responsibility for the safety of that pedestrians should fall largely on that pedestrian. Walking in front of a vehicle made of steel or aluminum moving at speed faster than a human can walk or run is not the smart and appropriate choice to make.
I do think that having crosswalks and walk signals are appropriate. And I do think that giving pedestrians a 5 second walk period can be fair rather than allowing traffic that is going the same direction to move and potentially turn into them.
The approach that I find troubling is that from a policy perspective, the messaging will place responsibility on the driver of the vehicle. Like when motorcycle accidents were on the rise, the share the road campaigns placed responsibility on the vehicle, not the bikers that drive recklessly between cars that create the risks, which will result in their own demise.
If you walk in front of a moving car or you drive between cars, then you risk that the vehicle is unable to brake in time and you bear the greatest consequence of that failure. So, you should make the responsible choice not to place yourself in a situation where you rely on the maintenance or attention span of another. Do not outsource your well being!
I think we do that with other areas in life. We want to reduce the risks associated with certain business transactions, so there are rules to avoid asymmetric information. But some consumers feel there is not a need for them to actually become more informed and make good decisions. The claim of not knowing is all to common in events where the person entering the transactions could have reasonably known.
The problem is when you make the responsibility completely one sided, where people will make irrational decisions is inappropriate. There is always that balance where each side needs to bear a reasonable amount of responsibility. And the party that bears the greatest risk needs to accept the responsibility to ensure they are making the right choices as well.
The path to reducing risk may be more effective if both sides of the equation are incentivized to reduce risk. If one side feels completely free of liability, then they will create the risk the other side no longer generates. A balanced approach and viewpoint may work a whole lot better.
The whole "I did not know" when you should have known should no longer be an acceptable response. You can add all the speed bumps to a road, but you cannot stop a person who walks in front of a moving car from getting hit.