Lloyd believes that all accidents can be eliminated. Except he lives in Toronto, Canada so that would make him either be Liberal or Socialist. Either name still means the same thing – Big Government forcing decisions upon the rest of us to “make us safer.”
It’s that old British freedom sucking “Safety and Security” label in which Nanny Governments takes you by the hand and tells you “No, no, no – don’t do that! You might hurt yourself. Or worse, hurt someone else!”. And he’s embracing this outsourcing of his own responsibility to faceless others and has no problem in demanding it of you because, well, you might hurt him:
‘There Are No Accidents’ Is a Groundbreaking New Book That Will Change How You Look at the World”
…I was shaken after seeing that tweet because whole sections of Singer’s book popped into my head. Being an architect, I have always described everything as a design problem: On Treehugger I have complained about the road design that encourages drivers to go fast, to the light truck designs with aggressive front ends that disproportionately kill and have terrible visibility. But Singer writes it is bigger than that.
“Accidents are not a design problem—we know how to design the built environment to prevent death and injury in accidents. And accidents are not a regulatory problem—we know the regulations that will reduce the accidental death toll. Rather, accidents are a political and social problem. To prevent them, we only need the will to redesign our systems, the courage to confront our worst inclinations, and the strength to rein in the powerful who allow accidents to happen.”
You can see where this is going, can’t you? And I’ve bolded the part that I go after further on down. But it’s this next part that got my dander up AND proved that a large part of Progressivism is exactly what I’ve said for years: to force Society to mitigate all bad decisions and actions made by an individual. This is “we will not allow you to blame the victim EVAH!”:
Understanding how blame is used and misused is a key part of this book; it has been the go-to excuse for hundreds of years. If a worker got their arm caught in a loom or was squished by a machine, they were sloppy, tired, or accident-prone. Car crashes were caused by “the nut behind the wheel.” Pedestrian deaths were due to jaywalking. Drug overdoses to criminals who couldn’t control themselves. Those experiencing material poverty have nobody but themselves to blame. It is all very convenient.
But it also lets everyone else off the hook. Singer writes, “The chief consequence of blame is the prevention of prevention. In finding fault with a person, the case of any given accident appears closed.”
,,,”Studies show that this simple act—finding someone to blame—makes people less likely to see systemic problems or seek systemic changes.
And it boils down to almost a Black Lives Matter issue (or if you prefer, “Equity” sorta sideways) in manipulating the BLM sense of Equity that victims are oppressed and everyone and everything is the oppressor and should be held to account for actions way out of their sphere. Like families suing gun manufacturers after their gun-toting gangbanger son/brother/father goes toes up after involving themselves in activities known to end in such dirt naps. And of course, just like the scream of the Progressive that “It’s SYSTEMIC RACISM”, it’s now being applied to everything.
After all, no one can suffer an outcome that is any worse than everyone else. That would be “disparate outcomes” (Dontcha just love these Progressive word salads??). Just another phrase that says “Equity” which is “equal outcomes” which, in the end “we all have to be the same” (Communism) and Government is their lever to make that happen.
Now, several others made pointed comments to the effect “Lloyd, you are eliminating personal responsibility”. Yes, he is but nowhere in the comments does he stand up and take personal responsibility for removing personal responsibility as part of normal life (sorry, I take no personal responsibility in writing that line about personal responsibility as I now blame my fingertips – but it is amusing to read, eh?).
So I decided to go “stupid” and point out how stupid this premise is. Please also note that I left this 4 am in the morning so can I plead partial incoherence?
To prevent them, we only need the will to redesign our systems, the courage to confront our worst inclinations, and the strength to rein in the powerful who allow accidents to happen.”
This entire screed is a mass of scapegoating others. Accidents will happen and the only person responsible is someone other than the victim. Big cars, big SUVs, Big Corporations – all are the Oppressors. Never Big Govt, though – it is always the Savior here at TH even as it gets bigger and more intrusive.
So, tell me, how do you square the harm done when a little EV Prius hits a cyclist in a safe cycle lane at 20 mph and kills them because the driver fell asleep at the wheel?
Too many times, Lloyd and others make up these strawman arguments – so answer mine. Is it the city that didn’t make the bike lanes wide enough? Or shield them with concrete barriers? Is the car manufacturer at fault for not having a designed-in “cyclist alert” radar system? How about the bike maker by not having designed a “watch out! It’s coming right at you!”? And, obviously, the car manufacturer is at fault for a badly designed “distracted driver” system installed to pick up the fact that the driver slumped onto the steering wheel, right?
Let’s get even stupider – why didn’t the street light post get wrapped up in foam – after all, the bike helmet wasn’t sufficiently robust as the rider’s head was split in two when he hit the post after being launched off the bike?
Yes, my comment has gone ad nauseum and to the extreme over “design flaws”.
But it points out something that Lloyd won’t admit to – Life is inherently risky and one is full of hubris to believe that all risk can be designed, regulated or “Law-fully” out of existence. After all, there is no shortage of stupid people, careless people, distracted people, and people who just believe they are invincible. Or just oblivious.
And with Lloyd’s reliance on Government to do exactly that wrongheaded idea of making risk 100% mitigated, who wants to live under such a regime?
Having “fixed” all those things, how many other activities that people enjoy will be judged to be “too dangerous for you!” like skydiving, extreme snowboarding, free diving, hiking in remote areas without companions, parcoer, or taking care of overtired toddlers just before bedtime?
No thanks, Lloyd, the NFL (National Football League) also stands for the No Fun League. Thanks for wanting to do that to we folks that don’t watch the NFL because of that.
If Lloyd wants to blame others for design, I just thought of Alinsky and made him live up to his own rulebook on this. ALL of it – which makes his premise is not much more than an accident already in progress.
(H/T: Treehugger)
