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

a reply to: rnaa

Build more roundabouts? There are a real lot of accidents here on the roundabouts, they could have just put a reduced speed sign..like down to forty five mph on the highway here to slow traffic before the stoplights in town. But the state would not allow that yet they reduce the speed now before the roundabouts to forty five mph. Five million bucks vs the cost on one 45 mph sign, and there are lots more accidents on the roundabouts because they can't plow them properly with the snow and ice we have here in the UP. We were on the roundabout and had to stop because a semi could not slow fast enough, it would have smashed into the side of our car if I had not stopped even though I had the right away...because it misjudged the icyness.

When they first got a roundabout here, the city officials ordered the cops to mark all accidents to be titled on the highway, not to mention the roundabout on the highway, they used this evidence to say they were safer....That was in Marquette. Sure it was safer since everyone tries to avoid them since people are constantly messing up. Avoiding them by going a different way also keeps you from getting stuck for three minutes if a lot of cars are on the highway coming through, everything is being twisted the locals did not actually want the roundabouts but in Ishpeming the council sent out people to try to promote the roundabouts to the public and since people are agreeable they did not challenge the people doing that, hence there are two roundabouts which are more hastle than any benefit there.

You see, twisting the evidence is not just about vaccines, it is happening everywhere. The cop I talked to from the Sheriff department about the accidents being shifted off the roundabout was disgusted that he had to list them as highway accidents instead of at the roundabout...and he said his opinion was the same as most of the cops.

$1 bet: The Covid Lockdowns prevented more traffic deaths than this bill will using the same timeframe no matter how many years after implementation.

“Best way to avoid punch, no be there.” —Mr. Miyagi

originally posted by: Ahabstar
$1 bet: The Covid Lockdowns prevented more traffic deaths than this bill will using the same timeframe no matter how many years after implementation.

“Best way to avoid punch, no be there.” —Mr. Miyagi

I thought that quote was from Yogi Berra ? 🪀

a reply to: vNex92


Well , for All those Idiots out their who Supposedly Voted for Him , Well....

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

When they lowered speed limits in the '70s, it was to conserve fuel. Now we're doing it out of safetyism.

While I am not for an across the board drop in speed limits, there are definitely some roads around here that could have more reasonable speed limits. For example there is one real nasty road that has potholes galore that has a 40 mph speed limit. That may have been reasonable when no potholes were present, but it is an absolute nightmare in it's current state. I mean sure you could drive the speed limit but you may be requiring a mechanic soon after


Also just wanted to say that some of ya'll out there drive like complete maniacs. For the record that isn't necessarily aimed at any ATS members just in general, aside from the one person I know here irl and yeah she definitely drives like a psychopath.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

I posted a link. It was a link in the article that the OP posted.

a reply to: Byrd

I checked all 5 posts you made in this thread. Maybe you thought you posted a link?

rnaa has admitted the bill itself provides no funding for bridge repair. Is he wrong?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rnaa

We are talking about continuous traffic monitoring by remote camera,

Okay... to return your question: where in the bill does it say this?

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),

Also, a link to the bill demanding kill switches would be appreciated. Here's the bill itself (plain text so it can be searched) link to bill


I see that the bill will address the following:
Sec. 11108. Railway-highway grade crossings.
Sec. 11109. Surface transportation block grant program.
Sec. 11110. Nationally significant freight and highway projects.
Sec. 11111. Highway safety improvement program.
Sec. 11112. Federal lands transportation program.
Sec. 11113. Federal lands access program.
Sec. 11114. National highway freight program.
Sec. 11115. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 11116. Alaska Highway.
Sec. 11117. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries.
Sec. 11118. Bridge investment program.
Sec. 11119. Safe routes to school.
Sec. 11120. Highway use tax evasion projects.
Sec. 11121. Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
Sec. 11122. Vulnerable road user research.
Sec. 11123. Wildlife crossing safety.
Sec. 11124. Consolidation of programs.
Sec. 11125. GAO report.
Sec. 11126. Territorial and Puerto Rico highway program.
Sec. 11127. Nationally significant Federal lands and Tribal projects
program.
Sec. 11128. Tribal high priority projects program.
Sec. 11129. Standards.
Sec. 11130. Public transportation.


I note that it addresses crash AVOIDANCE tech

*copypasta from the bill****
(A) an appropriate methodology for--
``(i) determining which advanced crash-
avoidance technologies shall be included in the
information;
``(ii) developing performance test criteria
for use by manufacturers in evaluating advanced
crash-avoidance technologies;
``(iii) determining a distinct rating
involving each advanced crash-avoidance technology
to be included; and
``(iv) updating overall
vehicle ratings to incorporate advanced crash-
avoidance technology ratings; and
``(B) such other information
and analyses as the Secretary determines to be necessary
to implement the rating of advanced crash-avoidance

I don't see kill switches or anything like it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

I checked all 5 posts you made in this thread. Maybe you thought you posted a link?

rnaa has admitted the bill itself provides no funding for bridge repair. Is he wrong?

TheRedneck

Seek and ye shall find:

(1) $27,500,000,000 shall be for a bridge replacement,
rehabilitation, preservation, protection, and construction
program: Provided further, That, except as otherwise provided
under this paragraph in this Act, the funds made available under
this paragraph in this Act shall be administered as if
apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code:
Provided further, That a project funded with funds made
available under this paragraph in this Act shall be treated as a
project on a Federal-aid highway:

Bill's source (text)

Also:

Provided further, That, subject to the following
proviso, funds made available under this paragraph in this Act that are
distributed to States shall be used for highway bridge replacement,
rehabilitation, preservation, protection, or construction projects on
public roads: Provided further, That of the funds made available under
this paragraph in this Act that are distributed to a State, 15 percent
shall be set aside for use on off-system bridges for the same purposes
as described in the preceding proviso: Provided further,
That, except as provided in the following
proviso, for funds made available under this paragraph in this Act that
are distributed to States, the Federal share shall be determined in
accordance with section 120 of title 23, United States Code: Provided
further, That for funds made available under this paragraph in this Act
that are distributed to States and used on an off-system bridge that is
owned by a county, town, township, city, municipality or other local
agency, or federally-recognized Tribe the Federal share shall be 100
percent;

And I'm still not sure why "zero traffic deaths" is such a horrible thing.

a reply to: Byrd

Thank you! It's about time someone besides me actually posted something concrete like the actual text.

Now, to answer your question: since I was unwilling to spend any more time locating something that would likely be ignored by detractors anyway, I was basing my information off the link I provided in that post. Now that you have so graciously linked the text of the bill, I will look through it.

I will say, however, that this bill is enormous! The drafts quite literally are probably feet thick. That is my biggest complaint at this time: why such a massive bill? Could it be to hide pork for various pet projects? Do we have to pass it to find out what's in it?

I'll look over it, but with so much text there, it is likely that the bill will be passed and generations of children will have grown up since its passage before anyone really knows what all is buried in there.

As a goal, the concept of "zero deaths" sounds admirable; as legislation, the proposal of "zero deaths" is unachievable. It is not the idea that people would not die in traffic accidents that is the problem; it is the realization that in order to even attempt such an unachievable goal, one must by necessity surrender a tremendous amount of individual freedom to a controlling authority.

No one is arguing that traffic deaths are a good thing. That is a false narrative.

TheRedneck

"ZERO Traffic Deaths"
LOL that is imposible!
Even if ALL vehicles ware AI controled.
even if you kept the speed below 25 mph.

a reply to: xuenchen

I think it was “Best way to avoid an error is to not touch the ball.”