I would argue the point of the article isn’t “we need more bollards everywhere “, it’s “our regard for pedestrian safety is absurdly low, even cheap tools to increase pedestrian safety (like bollards) are uncommon / controversial"

Vision Zero rules are that you either need physical separation or a speed limit of 30 km/h. 30 km/h is approximately the threshold where the vast majority of vehicle-pedestrian collisions aren't fatal.

They've chosen to lower the speed limit rather than add bollards.

I’m not arguing for or against bollards, I’m specifically addressing the following claim:

> I think that it's in fact quite immature to act like we must always optimize for lives saved, no matter the cost and no matter how small the gain.

This is plainly incorrect, as Sweden and the Netherlands demonstrate.