Where we find: "The reason for this conflict, Schelling explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage on the ice; crucially, it gave the player better peripheral vision, and it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads protected, but as individuals they couldn't afford to jeopardize their effectiveness on the ice. Making helmets compulsory eliminated the dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a competitive disadvantage. Without the rule, the players' individually rational decisions added up to a collectively irrational result. With the rule, the outcome was closer to what players really wanted.
The same phenomenon is, to some extent, at work in the fuel-economy debate. People believe that bigger and heavier cars are safer in a crash (forgetting that, often, bigger cars are also more likely to crash). And people like the fact that driving a higher-horsepower car makes you look better at the stoplight. So our desires as individuals to protect ourselves and to outclass our neighbors encourage us to buy bigger and bigger vehicles with more and more horsepower. And the market doesn't create counter-incentives that would push us in a responsible direction, since someone who drives a Hummer doesn't suffer the effects of pollution and global warming any more than someone driving a Prius does, and isn't charged more for the extra environmental damage."
[WS:] In short, it is necessary to make driving more costly and inconvenient to the drivers, say $6-$10 per gallon plus hefty user fees, to reduce their use. Simple making other choices available (e.g. better public transit) alone will not do it.
Wojtek