Or, get this: make it so people don’t take the car. Most of the accidents that involve serious injury or death involve cars or some other fast, motorized vehicle. Why not make more bike and pedestrian infrastructure?

Of course, I agree. But living in North America, this would never work because NIMBYs would keep any politician who even makes that suggestion out of office.

The fear of change, even if it offers unlimited freedom, safety, and convenience, has such a tremendous influence in our infrastructure's design.

I once asked a city planner why we don't stop people from parking in bike lanes. His answer was that "we wouldn't have bike lanes if we didn't compromise", stating that the pushback at the idea of removing on-street parking would basically kill the idea of ~~safe~~ cycling infrastructure. That's the kind of small-minded BS we have going on here.

Well yes, but...

Sometimes people will need cars. I don't think we should or even could limit car use to nothing. We still need ambulances, we still may need to transport something heavy to a far away location

We should make short distance car travel hard and all travels by foot or bicycle easy, like in the Netherlands. You just pick up a bike and go wherever whereas in a car you'll have to drive around for longer to get there.

A result of nothing is a lot better than a bunch of injuries and death

Well.... Yeah! We want no deaths, and that requires a lotmof work, yeah

On impact the back door of the ambulance swung open and the gurney rolled away. So the ambulance driver got out and was a skantily clad nurse who then chased after the patient. It was like a scene from Scooby Doo where the gurney rolled across the street one way with the nurse in chase, only for the gurney to suddenly zoom by between a different set of cars in the opposite direction. She nearly lost her shirt and hat several times in a dramatic and with an exaggerated motion to cover herself and be decent.