>>1637025>well, i'd prefer to think the loop are *not* completely powerless to do anything about the risk of people coming to harm while using their service,Hope in one hand, shit in the other etc. The Loop is as powerless as all other industries to eliminate risk of fatalities completely, which is why no industry is seriously trying to achieve that goal. Nor should they. All industries have plans for eventualities so as to *mitigate* fatalities and injuries, and so will the loop, but no industry even pretends to have plans for every scenario. For the airline industry, when a plane is stalled a hundred meters above the ground, the contingency plan is "fuck it". And that's fine.
As it stands, a mile driven down a naked loop, without any safety features, is arguably safer than driving a mile above ground. Virtually all major accidents happens as a result of collisions with animals, potholes, debris or other cars, wet roads, heavy rain and/or strong winds, glare from sunlight etc. etc., all elements eliminated from the loop. What almost never happens is a car wrecking due to a random, sudden mechanical failure while driving down a straight, smooth road under optimal light and temperature conditions.
>But what if a car randomly explodes down there!Bummer! It probably would have exploded up there too. As for the other cars in the loop; the ones downstream of the loop will proceed to their destinations. The cars upstream are one software update away from automatically stopping when a vehicle in front is detected to be in distress, and can autopilot in reverse away from the scene at 60mph (Teslas are mechanically capable of reversing in 150mph). This will happen so seldomly that most people won't give it a second thought. The rest will simply walk instead, which will probably be way more statistically dangerous, but feel much safer, and thus be preferred by dullards. Enjoy your walk.
