What a pile. Your anecdata are not in and of themselves data.
Regardless of your skill, or the skill/expertise/attentiveness of any individual driver, drivers as a collective remain dangerous to themselves and pedestrians. How did I come to this conclusion? I reviewed data, here's a couple of sources:
By all means, if you have data that shows people are inherently becoming better drivers, or that there's a method to improve _all_ drivers systemically -- let's talk about it.
The only really useful numbers are in the table of fatalities per million miles travelled. We see a big win as airbags were rolled out, but no big win since driver assistance technologies were introduced.
I’m not sure what conclusion you’re deriving from that, but the data seems to support the counter argument that these technologies are of dubious value.
Generally requests in comments to cite sources or provide data are in fact simply disingenuous attempts to confuse the issue.
Regardless, your datas mean nothing -- They are only guaranteed to be incorrect for each individual case.
You say collectively drivers are dangerous, but the implication is that we would apply the same rule to all in the interest of 'fairness' or some other such subjective nonsense.
So it's 'Drag everyone down to the same low level?' Is that the solution?
NO.
You are allowed to make mistakes in a free country and pay the price. Saying you are not free to hurt others implies you would do so -- even in the face of a lifetime of safe driving and non-criminal behavior.
Those bodies compiling the statistic you quote exist for the sole purpose of bureaucratic enrichment through the creation of rules -- whether they are ever really needed is irrelevant to them.
I'll end with a quote from a man much wiser than any of us on this board.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
If my attempt to cite a source is a veiled attempt to confuse the issue, then what is your citation of anecdata? And what is your context of this very argument, if not a meta-argument?
Regardless, it seems like you prefer the idea of anarchy to order on the roads. Especially since order can only come from groups which exist for enrichment through creation and enforcement of rules. I'm sure your decades of experience have proved to you that a road without laws and bureaucracy is best for all. After all, tyranny is super bad, so less tyranny is always more good!
I'll sign off with my own C.S. Lewis quote.
"One of the most cowardly things ordinary people do is to shut their eyes to facts."
-- C. S. Lewis (2010). “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”
Regardless of your skill, or the skill/expertise/attentiveness of any individual driver, drivers as a collective remain dangerous to themselves and pedestrians. How did I come to this conclusion? I reviewed data, here's a couple of sources:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
By all means, if you have data that shows people are inherently becoming better drivers, or that there's a method to improve _all_ drivers systemically -- let's talk about it.