Increase the fines (and scale by income) until they provide sufficient incentive to pay attention and have the tiniest bit of self control. Then the people holding a ticket can beg the engineers to fix the road to remove the need for not being lazy and impatient instead of the people whose kids were just killed.

This just in, millions of deaths a year and billions of tonnes of CO2 aren’t a problem. /s

This is also vastly undercounting car-related deaths and overcounting non-car deaths. They are a major cause of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory disease as well as chronic injuries that cause death later. Irate car drivers are also a significant category of homicides.

A lot of violent crime can also be traced to leaded gasolene.

If you can walk or use a low speed vehicle to get to your destination and you can walk to the second family down in 5 minutes it’s not a low density settlement just because you can see a single story house.

Villages are missing middle (at least until the commercial center gets gutted and replaced with car yards and parking and 50% of the houses are demolished for highway).

These are the walkable non-suburban communities being talked about. Why are you trying to use examples of the desired outcome as a counter example (and reason to continue destroying said towns)?

If you take both the population and area of greater houston without the urban core, there is one hectare of suburban wasteland per person.

One person per hectare isn’t the rural settlement in your imagined past, it’s a single family and a few farm hands living on an unusually large and high-labor productivity farm way out of town.

No. Humans have lived in walkable villages and towns built at missing middle densities (hundreds to a few thousand people and markets all within walking distance linked by long distance travel corridors you walked to or what you are calling ‘urban’) with local services and a handful of people living on the outskirts.

Endless suburban seas of <500 people per km^2 were invented for the automobile. The past you are counterfactually claiming exists did not have half an acre of roads, car parks, 4-car garages, set backs and car yards per resident, nor did it have all the services in a central gigantic box building 20 miles away through a sea of identical houses, nor did your rural people demand those in higher density regions provode them with infrastructure for heating, cooling, water and sewerage. Nor did they demolish all the houses around the market just in case they wanted to leave a cart there.

That doesn’t fix any of the problems mentioned.

Efficiency, battery price for the cost, power, and charge time/long distance speed are measurably objectively in the top tier (although not uniquely so or not the singular best).

Not worth it for the shoddy construction, abusive customer-exploitative remote control that means you never own it, false advertising, and cultural association (also not uniquely so).

The roadster was released after that happened.

I guess there might be a handful of prototypes around?

Whatever you want to call them, they share at least one wall, are two story, have a deep aspect ratio and side access on the other wall is minimal (if there at all). The only awful features are the set back and the giant garage (which can just be used for indoor space|.

If the garage is used as internal space, then row houses are plenty high enough density. The occupant could have a much nicer back yard without the setback (front yards are car infrastructure), but the road is not too wide, just awful to be on.

If we assume 1.8-2.1 people per house, then these blocks are about and 300m^2 with about 100m^2 out the front in tye public spacs e per house (property boundary to middle of road]. 5000 people per km^2 for the residential area, assume 50% as much commercial/parks elsewhere (~100m^2 per resident) and you’re at over 3000 people per km^2

This is in the ideal missing middle range if a little bit low, it’s just awful missing middle (that will probably also have its density ruined hy a sea of carparks in the commercial areas and a highway, but that’s a separate issue).

Running against traffic on the road improves pretty much all of these and puts the new threat (oncoming cars) under their control.

It does leave the runner vulnerable to cars turning right (in drive-on-the-right countries) though if they aren’t hyper aware of it.

“Buy a new big car because it will be later year than a new small car and thus have newer safety features” is an incredibly wild way of drawing the exact opposite conclusion to the one you should have from that data.

Which is offset by the lack of safety regulation, high center of mass, heavier weight to crush the cabin in a rollover, and much higher likelihood of running over your own kids.

Stop spreading propaganda by cherry picking,

Now you’re dodging the point. You’re spreading the harmful propaganda, and using the fact that it’s effective to justify spreading it.

Which does not override the lack of safety of a tall heavy vehicle. Small cars are not less safe than emotional support trucks and full sized SUVs, because the latter get specific exemptions from safety regulations.

“I’m going to increase the probability of killing my kid, innocent hystanders because of this one specific critereon i’ve cherry picked” is an emotional argument.

I can object to it being used to justify killing kids for a feeling though. Which is what you were doing by suggesting it’s a prisoner’s dilemma.

That’s a feeling, not a lack of safety. Intimidating people into buying big cars on purpose is still vile, but the people who cave are giving in to irrationality and putting their feelings above the safety of their kids and of others. Tragedy of the commons is when defecting improves your utility. The SUV/emotional support truck arms race is only decreases the utility of others in exchange for feelings of power.

The only way to feel safe. The really big ego-support vehicles are no safer than a subcompact to be inside of, but they are far more likely to kill your own family.