> No, you don't get to limit yourself this way. Either you are in favor of fair rules or you are not.

I disagree. Let me rephrase my sentence. I'm in favor of clean, well defined and fair rules as long as they make sense and actually benefit the society. Rules can be well-defined and fair, and still be bad. For instance, let's look at the post 9/11 fluid limits in air travel. The rule is clear, well-defined (you can have max 100ml of fluid per container) and fair (you don't get to bring a 1L bottle on the same plane as everyone else who can't, just because you're rich) and still completely idiotic and harmful [0].

> You do not care how much misery you cause, in your quest for your personal version of utopia.

I do. I just happen to believe that millions of people dying (many of them due to no fault of their own) and resources being wasted on a terribly suboptimal way of transportation (especially in big cities) is more misery than those millions of people not dying and resources not being wasted.

> No, actually it doesn't. Compare death rate of France vs US. Basically identical. Yet one has stupid rules (only the rich can drive) one does not.

I read that as drivers in France are as bad as drivers in US, but because France has less of them, the rate of deaths per 100k people is less than half of the US.

> Some examples: Nail gun (explosive or air powered). Bench press. Milling lathe. Heavy machinery. Digging equipment. Chain saw. Fire. Knives. Slicing mandolin.

Well those are all tools that you use very rarely, in isolated environment and it is hard for them to hurt anyone else than their operator. Even so, people who use those tools very often (i.e. in a factory) have special security measures and training (or else their workshop gets shut down by EHS department).

Imagine if every other person were to use a nail gun for hours a day while working next to hundreds others. You couldn't possibly say that this wouldn't get regulated quickly, and if people were dying in accidents on a mass scale, the security wouldn't be improving until people would stop dying.

You say fire, explosives - but as far as I can tell, if you make anything more explosive than baking soda and water in a city, you'll quickly get arrested.

Basically, people are free to hurt themselves however they like, as long as they don't pose danger to others. That's the difference between an axe accident and a car accident.

> Every single tool ever can, and has, caused death and injury. Some tools are used by a lot of people, some by only a few.

Yes. And we care more about those that cause more injury than those that cause less injury.

> You seem to want the world to be like a nursery - no one can use anything dangerous ever. There is nothing special about cars in this, they are just the thing you happened to notice.

No, I just don't want to become a vegetable thanks to a random idiot who thinks speed limits are arbitrary numbers put in place to earn moeny for the police. And I don't like when people unnecessarily die (again, often due to no fault of their own) when they could not. I also pick on cars every now and then because drivers are making lives worse for us, people who live in big cities, and hell, we have some rights too.

[0] - annoys people, along with the rest of security theatre is responsible for deaths of many of those, who decided to travel by cars, and if the rule is to prevent someone from bringing significant amounts of liquid explosives, then why all bottles get thrown to the same container next to a line of 200 people?