Originally Posted by
LDAHL
I’m a little ashamed to admit it, but during my tenure as a civil servant, the “one death is too many” platitude/argument was something of a joke. A politician or citizen would resort to it whenever they lacked the evidence to prove a point. Not being responsible for allocating limited resources or setting priorities, it nevertheless makes you sound caring and foresighted.
I remember once that our Sheriff was making a pitch for (fairly expensive) horse patrols in our county parks. A board member asked him what the record of crime in the parks was. Rather than admit it was fairly minimal, we were treated to an extended rant of the even one would be too many variety.
The corollary was the “how many people have to die before you do something” gambit. It was often associated with what we called “grieving mother syndrome”. The basic format was high school kid gets drunk and kills self and others by crashing into a tree or rolling his car. The mother than decides the kid’s death was due to the road’s design rather than the dear departed’s blood alcohol content. Tearful phone calls, public hearings and letters to the editor ensue. In some cases a project is authorized that takes precedence over correcting a much more dangerous situation. It was common to ask questions like “how many people have to die before you change that light bulb? “
One refreshing aspect of military service was when you asked that question, they could provide you with an estimate.