the argument in the NYT piece[0] is that the US is not doing enough to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists[1] compared to other rich nations. (obviously because they have less cars than the US, so the article just points out that "cars first" costs a lot of lives)
> If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
Absolutely, but ... I'm not saying "it's all connected" and all of it is due to suburban sprawl, but ... it's a common factor.
If people were not driving, drinking, vaping, fentanyling in their little isolation cubes (ah, I mean cars, or houses with perfectly useless backyards, or tents), they might die less. Low population density does nasty things to communities. NIMBYs keep density low, commute times high, etc.
> If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
Absolutely, but ... I'm not saying "it's all connected" and all of it is due to suburban sprawl, but ... it's a common factor.
If people were not driving, drinking, vaping, fentanyling in their little isolation cubes (ah, I mean cars, or houses with perfectly useless backyards, or tents), they might die less. Low population density does nasty things to communities. NIMBYs keep density low, commute times high, etc.
[0] https://archive.ph/sEmh5
[1] usually "bigger car wins"