Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnished | Hacker News Reader

It does seem a little hypocritical to follow up 'should aim for zero children dead from being ran over by vehicles' with 'but 16 is fine'

View on HN

If we aim for zero (no matter what) society grinds to screeching halt. Not even considering constitutional aspects.

Especially the Western societies should get back to a healthy risk perception. In my opinion (I live in Germany) we've gone overboard.

I don't think so. I would have said the same about other statistics. In the end it defies my intuition, which is interesting given that the possibility of getting run over is pretty present in every day life of many children. You have to keep in mind that zero is pretty much impossible because the risk is present all long as we drive, so we should aim for zero but won't get to zero.

Then we are not actually aiming for zero. I don't think it is wise to engage in such blatant sophistry when discussing public policy.

of course you're aiming for zero. But you can't just wish it, there are constraints that arise from our reality. It's all a story of risks and costs, from crossing the street, driving a bicycle to using electricity. You can even die from the flu. In the end dying is unfortunately part of living and in some way unavoidable. A little bit of risks repeated a lot goes a long way.

Calling my comment sophistry is a little bit dramatic I think ;) especially considering you started this argument by twisting my statement about 16 dead kids being fine

public policy should be rational and evidence based

Reply on news.ycombinator.com