LogFAQs > #979289259

DarkDoc posted...

I meant data at city level. ie London has more deaths than Exeter or whatever.

But if you're going on a national level, the top two (by traffic-related death rate) are India and China. Hmm. Brazil, USA, Nigeria and Indonesia all very high...

I'd have to look into that. I can think of a couple of specific examples (Phoenix AZ and Toronto have much higher traffic incidents than Amsterdam) but I'll see if I can find some per city breakdowns, particularly within the same countries.

But it's the exception rather than the rule...

That's the problem, it shouldn't be the exception.

Yeah, sounds simple. Lights, a bridge or tunnel come to mind. Maybe they didn't put one of those in because it's all about how many people would use it? Or simply cost.

There are lights, they just suck. The issue is they didn't integrate non drivers from the start, we were added on afterwards.

Or just, blindly building an ever increasing number of new homes isn't wise because it doesn't solve the problem of overpopulation.

Also, what you're describing about "private investors" isn't a problem related to whether there are sufficient properties or not, because it doesn't change the number. Logic being one family will live in one home no matter who owns it.

Ignoring AirBnB which is a major factor in the shortage of homes in some areas, it pushes the prices of homes up and pushes poorer people further from the jobs they're working, which means they now need to travel further and potentially without public transport, depending how good transport is further from the town centres. These jobs still need to be worked.

But then, who's going to pay for it? Builders are on tight margins. It's all about profit per square metre. They can't suddenly find an extra 800 million just to build something they can't sell.

If there was enough money to build all these extra schools and hospitals, you'd probably have grounds to say we weren't overpopulated. But there simply isn't. ie if you can't afford to build, then don't build.

Considering how the country's finances have been mismanaged for at least the last 14 years, linking the economy to overpopulation isn't a particularly compelling argument. It is a great example of how the free market can't actually fix these sorts of problems, but this wasn't the argument you were making. This is precisely where the state needs to step in.

These sorts of amenities are an investment that we can't not make. We can't just not educate our children, we can't leave our people out to dry without access to healthcare. It's not that we can't afford to do it right now, we're actively choosing to spend our money elsewhere.

We should. Or then again, another way to think about it is that I'm not a manager or a shareholder in the railways. I don't care if they make a profit or not, and it's not my job to fix them. If the rail companies want to fuck themselves over, then they can go ahead.

You are a stakeholder though. Ignoring the economic benefits from functioning transit systems, all of those people who would take the trains rather than driving means that your driving experience would be better.