I think what we'd all actually be safer without is super smart academic types who think they can do a better job of system design than 100 years of shared experience. Traffic rules are among the most organic constraints we have developed. Literally every rule was written in blood. When I was teaching my daughters to drive I told them that if they ignored a stop sign, or ran a traffic light, they were not only putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk, they were also disrespecting the memories of the people who were maimed or killed so that we could realize we needed a traffic signal or sign in that spot.
Automated vehicles will solve this entire problem, and in the meantime I'll go with what we've learned by, you know, actually driving over academic theorizing.
That implies reasoned thought will never win out over the wisdom of crowds - was Pasteur a "super smart academic type"? By this logic commonly-held superstitions trump data resulting from experiment.
It also fails to recognize the experience of people who aren't in the majority. Many of my acquaintances would say the best way to improve safety for bicyclists is to outlaw cycling (I'm sure the less pleasant among them would support this), but we have the right to travel for a reason.
No the article discusses observed phenomena and attributes their cause to what the author wishes the cause to be, without, as far as I could see, any real evidence.
Automated vehicles will solve this entire problem, and in the meantime I'll go with what we've learned by, you know, actually driving over academic theorizing.