Biden Admin Goal of ZERO Traffic Deaths Means Controlling Your EVERY Move

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: AaarghZombies

If the government wants to put a black box in my vehicle that means that I absolutely cannot be held responsible for a road death, then I'm all for it. Give me immunity from persecution if it malfunctions, and I'm all ears.


It's already there. look under the drivers seat of any vehicle. It records the last 30 minutes.

Jokes on you, I've got a sporty little Italian number, it predates that kind of tech by a couple of decades.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
They've already started the "save lives" road campaign. They've changed the road law to give cycles and pedestrians the right of way. If a pedestrian is crossing the road, or about to cross at a junction the motorist will have to give way.
They are telling cyclists to ride 2 abreast or ride in the centre of the lane and the motorist must give them 2 metres clearance.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
where will the black box lead?

If I'm late on my taxes will they freeze my vehicle?

If your bank records that you've been at a restaurant or bar and purchased alcohol and now they track that you're driving, will they shut you down?

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Byrd

Its the "and so forth" blanket statement I have problem with.

Instead of blaming inanimate objects, making reasonable people pay exorbitant costs or introducing Orwellian controls and another layer of spy equipment how about a stab at addressing the real problem first,

Driver Training

Unskilled, low trained, no trained individuals issued a license via an imbecilic written test and driving tests maneuvering cones in a parking lot greatly contribute to the insanity usually leading to many accidents.

So basically, my granddaughter.

Who will be learning to drive. She doesn't deserve/need well-lighted streets, free of potholes, with bicycle lanes where her sister and mother might ride safely? No good bridges?

No repairs to that awful road down the street?

I'm not fond of the idea of people denying us the right to better streets, particularly since my granddaughter may have to drive me to and from the airport if I have to fly somewhere.

If you insist upon relying on a mandated safety device, then the very first should be cell signal blockage in front drivers' area while transmission is in gear, your convenience is many times injurious to others.

Dat's gonna be a problemo, methinks.

Lots and lots and lots of folks use the GPS function to find maps or to (while driving) say "hey google - where's the nearest gas station with a restroom" or "hey google -- where's the nearest store that sells chocolate since it's Valentine's day" -- and that requires an active cell phone signal.

Without my phone, I wouldn't know that I could find Emergency Chocolate at the nearest Best Buy!

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Byrd

Camera tickets are illeagle in many states. You cannot give a vehicle a ticket, only the driver. The cameras are not good enough to prove who was driving.

Traffic camera evidence does not stand up in court unless they can prove who was driving consistently enough to be applied equally and not just to the unlucky ones that get a good face shot.

That's not a good argument (IMHO) against repairing roads and bridges, improving lights, and fixing streets. You've hopped onto one section that you think doesn't need to be in there.

But the bill isn't one to put up traffic cameras on every street corner in the US. The claim (in the headline and the OP) is how measures designed to reduce traffic deaths to zero "Means Controlling Your EVERY Move" (scroll right up to the title of the thread.) And when I looked at the bill that the headline was angry about, I discovered that it's an infrastructure bill focused on making the roads safer still. Speed trap cameras were mentioned along with a lot of other things...none (including the cameras) of which are mandated. The goal is to fix and improve things so that our traffic death rate drops farther still.

I think that no traffic deaths (human OR animal) would be a glorious thing.

The OP and article seem to suggest that "no traffic deaths" is somehow not a good thing.

And I'm just not seeing it that way.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ElGoobero
where will the black box lead?

If I'm late on my taxes will they freeze my vehicle?

If your bank records that you've been at a restaurant or bar and purchased alcohol and now they track that you're driving, will they shut you down?

(/silly mode engaged) Ketsuko, m'dear, they'll track you down by your Dr. Who logo and arrest you for TARDIS-napping from your credit card receipts dated 1847 through 2525. (/silly mode disengaged)

a reply to: AaarghZombies

My condition for surrendering the freedom of driving myself is that I'm also surrendering any culpability.

Well, someone's got an inflated opinion of themselves!

In what universe do you get to tell the government what you will and will not be held liable for? In the one I presently inhabit, the government tells you what you will and will not be liable for.

Next time you get pulled over, just tell the nice cop that you don't recognize his authority over you. Then let us all know how that works out for ya... after they let you out of prison, of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Byrd

Oh how quickly we forget the conditions on tracking transactions they've already tried to sneak through in legislation ...

This is how a social credit scoring system works.

a reply to: Byrd

That's not a good argument (IMHO) against repairing roads and bridges, improving lights, and fixing streets.

I haven't seen anything that says the bill provides money for or requires fixing streets, roads, bridges, or lights. Methinks perhaps you are trying to judge the merits of the bill based on the name of the bill. Might I remind you that more often than not a bill is named the exact opposite of what it actually does?

If you have an actual copy of the bill, I'd like to see it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Byrd
I don't think you'll find anyone here who opposes repair and improvement of roads, bridges or lighting. What's opposed is nanny statism and control embedded into the bill oh and let's not forget inclusiveness which surely will go long way making everyone safer.

The reaction to my suggestion of cell blocking entirely proved my point that convenience over safety is prevalent.

That you used your granddaughter to cite road improvement in one paragraph and in next go on a diatribe in support of distracted driving is beyond me.

Never once was my point of piss poor driver training requirements so I have to assume you're also heedless of a newly licensed teen in a 700hp car bought by daddy looking for a Starbucks and killing someone like your granddaughter.

No amount of spy safety do dad's is going to stop that as long as we allow unskilled distracted driving.

And never forget that the same people attempting to force zero traffic deaths on us through this questionable legislation are the same ones who are also blocking medical treatments, threatening doctors, scientists, and other similar professionals, and forcing vaccines of questionable benefit on the public on pain of being barred from all social participation and means of self-support.

So I'm really sure they absolutely have my best interests at heart this time.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: AaarghZombies
They've already started the "save lives" road campaign. They've changed the road law to give cycles and pedestrians the right of way. If a pedestrian is crossing the road, or about to cross at a junction the motorist will have to give way.
They are telling cyclists to ride 2 abreast or ride in the centre of the lane and the motorist must give them 2 metres clearance.

Which is exactly how I was taught to ride 65 years ago.

Bicycles and pedestrians have had right of way forever - from the very beginning of the introduction of the automobile.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Anyone that thinks they can reduce traffic deaths down to almost nothing is delusional. Hitting a piece of ice that fell off the underside of a car can throw you into opposing traffic, so can ice buildup in the fender that slides down and jams a tire and causes the car to swerve. That problem will also be in self driving cars, and that ice can build up in a wheel well in a half hour drive. It can make it so when you go turn the wheel to go around a corner, the car cannot turn...had that happen to me down somewhere around Kansas one year when I drove my Uncle back from Arizona one year. We drove for an hour and got to a town and I had to make a multipoint turn to go into the drive of a car wash to hose out the ice which took many refills of coins to get cleaned out of the front wheel wells, and same with the back. I have that problem with my Subaru, I am constantly hacking the ice out of the wheelwells to make sure we can turn properly.

Yes accidents happen and will always happen and sometimes people will die from accidents. EVERYBODY understands that.

But how is reducing the likelihood of a fatal accident by means that are under our control a bad thing?

Fixing a bridge is better than letting that bridge collapse and taking a busload of people with it, isn't it? Or filling a pothole so the suspension doesn't snap at 50 miles an hour? Or lighting the street so you can see the kid chasing a ball before you run over them.

Reducing accidental road accident deaths to as low as possible is the AMBITION. The GOAL is zero, because you can't get any lower than that. We have not failed if we do not achieve that goal, but we have failed if we do not attempt it.

It may be difficult or impossible to achieve, but if you don't set a goal you are guaranteed to fail to reach your ambition.

a reply to: rnaa

Fixing a bridge is better than letting that bridge collapse and taking a busload of people with it, isn't it? Or filling a pothole so the suspension doesn't snap at 50 miles an hour? Or lighting the street so you can see the kid chasing a ball before you run over them.

Again, I'll ask: where is the mention of such funds in this bill? I went down, point by point, every proposal that was listed on the most initial MSM report I had, and not one word was said about funds to actually fix roads and bridges.

If it is not specified in the actual bill, it does not exist. The title of the bill is irrelevant.

Can you point me to the text of the actual bill so we can all see that what you are claiming is true, that this bill at least includes some funding for actual highway and bridge repair?

TheRedneck

Transport for NSW | Centre for Road Safety Mobile speed camera operations in other Australian jurisdictions Research Report

TL;DR:

• In Victoria, covert mobile speed camera operations began in 1989. Cameron et al (2003) briefly summarise evaluations of 1990s operations, which showed them to be very effective and included a 41% reduction in fatal crash outcome associated with very high camera activity.
  
• ...the Queensland Camera Detected Offence Program was associated with an overall reduction in serious casualty crashes of between 26%-30% across 2013-2015.
  
• Western Australia... The mobile speed camera program resulted in a large reduction in fatal crashes, with the average reductions over the years of between 20% and 25%
  
• (no data for South Australia)
  
• The ACT mobile speed camera program was associated with an average 19.7% reduction in
  casualty crashes in areas within 500 m of a mobile speed camera site since program
  implementation.
  
• New South Wales... In summary, the road toll went up when the mobile speed
  camera stopped, and decreased when it started again.
  

The point here is that there most definitely is research and experience that speed cameras SAVE LIVES.

Personally, I am not fond of the idea of speed cameras, because in my opinion, hoons just figure it in to the cost of driving - like paying extra for an exit row seat on a long haul plane trip or an extra serve of cheese on your pizza. A cop stops you right now and you aren't speeding anymore, the camera sends you a bill in a week or too.

But I cannot argue with the statistics that the cameras are saving lives. People know that they (might) be on camera and overall traffic is slowed down. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

And, at least in Australia, if you accumulate enough you lose your license, and in some cases you just might lose your car to the crusher.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, from that point of view, 'bridge repair' is not specifically in THIS bill.

However, neither is this bill going to 'control your every move' as the original post claims.

Biden admin., Congress push to improve road safety with new infrastructure funding

• Lawmakers in Washington hope to address the growing problem of reckless driving thanks to funds from the recently-passed bipartisan infrastructure framework
  
• The bill includes a historic amount of money towards road safety programs, including $6 billion for a new "Safe Streets and Roads for All" program
  
• A government report published in October said the number of U.S. traffic deaths in the first six months of 2021 hit 20,160, the highest first-half total since 2006
  
• The infrastructure bill also includes a number of safety requirements for automakers, like a mandate that they must find a high-tech way to keep drunken people from driving
  

The bill includes a historic amount of money towards road safety programs, including $6 billion for a “brand new ‘Safe Streets and Roads for All’ program that's going to help local communities reduce crashes and fatalities,” a Department of Transportation spokesperson said on a Tuesday press call.

That program will focus specifically on biking and pedestrian deaths, officials said.

The federal program, which may take several months to set up, would support cities’ campaigns to end traffic fatalities with a “Vision Zero” effort that could build traffic roundabouts to slow cars, carve out new bike paths and widen sidewalks and even reduce some roads to shift commuters toward public transit or other modes of transportation.

The legislation requires at least 15% of a state’s highway safety improvement program funds to address pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized road users if those groups make up 15% or more of the state’s crash fatalities.

a reply to: rnaa

Yes, from that point of view, 'bridge repair' is not specifically in THIS bill.

Then your entire argument is moot. As is Byrd's argument above. This is nothing but control measures, as I pointed out item by item.

However, neither is this bill going to 'control your every move' as the original post claims.

Irrelevant. The title was obviously hyperbole. The use of hyperbole by the OP does not change the nature of the bill.

We are talking about continuous traffic monitoring by remote camera, kill switches so your car can be disabled (and this does not preclude such happening at 70 mph, leading to a quite likely fatal pile-up), and it will serve to make automobiles more expensive for those who can barely afford them now. In essence that's a regressive tax, as it will disproportionately affect the poorer classes much more than it will the upper classes.

These are things that are actually in the bill, in black and white. Arguing for them because of things that are not even in the bill is, IMO, a more dishonest tactic than the hyperbole in the thread title.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: AaarghZombies
They've already started the "save lives" road campaign. They've changed the road law to give cycles and pedestrians the right of way. If a pedestrian is crossing the road, or about to cross at a junction the motorist will have to give way.
They are telling cyclists to ride 2 abreast or ride in the centre of the lane and the motorist must give them 2 metres clearance.

You do realize that you're talking about the UK right?

That isn't happening in America and has nothing to do with Bidden.

My understanding is that most of that was already the case but they just switched up the language.

For example it's advised to ride two abreast on roads with poor visibility to avoid long chains of cyclist when riding in groups, and you move to the middle of the lane when turning right when in countries that drive on the left.

Pedestrians in the UK always have had right of way, they don't have jaywalking laws. And two meters clearance for a cyclist means that you shouldn't overtake unless the other lane is clear of oncoming traffic.

This is basic stuff.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: AaarghZombies
They've already started the "save lives" road campaign. They've changed the road law to give cycles and pedestrians the right of way. If a pedestrian is crossing the road, or about to cross at a junction the motorist will have to give way.
They are telling cyclists to ride 2 abreast or ride in the centre of the lane and the motorist must give them 2 metres clearance.

Which is exactly how I was taught to ride 65 years ago.

Bicycles and pedestrians have had right of way forever - from the very beginning of the introduction of the automobile.

In parts of the US you can only cross at certain places due to jaywalking laws.

I think maybe the op didn't realize that the rule changes applied only to the uk.

a reply to: rnaa

My 2020 Subaru beeps at me all the time, and a big screen comes on the dash when eyesight doesn't work on the car. All of that technology makes me take my eyes off the road to try to figure out what set the alarm off. It distracts people. If one tire goes down two pounds to below a threshhold in the winter, since the tires are low profile, that change in pressure is normal, the tire light comes on and a warning signal comes on. I watch the tire pressure screen and as the tires warm, it jumps up two or three pounds, right up to thirty one pounds where the door says it is supposed to be. The thing is that those tire gauges are wrong, actually I have the tires at thirty six in the summer to get the thirty two on the gauge on the dash.

Those tire pressure automatic valves are just as bad as digital thermometors they sell to take your temperature in the drug store, I asked the pharmacist one day which one of those thermometors was accurate...she told me to buy the cheapest one because none of them are even close to accurate, they tested them there at the store and even the ones four times the price...their most expensive one...was junk.

Distractions cause accidents most times and the technology on cars is a major issue. My automatic lane centering has to be turned off or the car wants to wander a little if the lines on the roads are inconsistant. There is a sort of small play in the steering wheel if it is on, which disappears if you turn it off. Even though the adjustment is small, you can feel the little slack it has...that signals me to turn it off, I hated that feeling after I owned the sixty nine mustang. Usually if you feel that, you go tighten the adjuster on the steering box of the car. The lines on the roads here are pretty crappy, they fade in and out in a few months after they are repainted.

If the government heads thinks adding technology is going to make things safer, they are delusional.