36,200 Traffic Deaths in 2012...is it time to further "infringe" on the right to travel by motor v

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The National Safety Council announced last week that there were an estimated 36,200 traffic deaths in 2012...up from 34,600 last year. While the "right to travel" is a constitutional right, the use of motor vehicles on our public roads is a privilege subject to licensure and well regulated by safety and traffic laws. Since the total traffic deaths exceeds deaths by firearms (homicide, suicide and accident) and can happen to innocent persons on and even off the road is it time to further regulate driving on American roads? Possible issues: driving by illegal aliens, dangerous (to riders) motorcycles, dangerous (to others) OTR trucks, driving impaired by prescription drugs, etc.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Given some of the cars I've seen pictures of with supermarket trolley wheels instead of normal tyres etc i'm surprised there aint more deaths on the roads



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Wow, 36,000! And people are focusing on guns.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Hey I have an idea. Maybe they could lower the maximum speed limit to 55 mph for everyone!



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Assault cars. Go figure.


They will try to legislate autos eventually.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I think only the government should be able to register vehicles.




edit on 24-2-2013 by dainoyfb because: of typo.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


There should be more legislation on personal vehicles . And there are people who shouldn't have a license .

or is this thread about a sad attempt to have a discussion on gun control ?

Not really sure of the op's angle
edit on 24/2/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


There should be more legislation on personal vehicles . And there are people who shouldn't have a license .

or is this thread about a sad attempt to have a discussion on gun control ?

Not really sure of the op's angle
edit on 24/2/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)


I agree with you totally.

Car ownership is a privilage not a right. I'm in favor of yearly reviews of driving records. Random, yet mandatory, safety checks and drug tests by DMV agents. Having to hold 1mil worth of insurance on vehicle, with monthly verification that it is current. Updated (monthly) signs or "tags" to give easy visual cue to LEOs if a car is compliant. I also wouldn't mind limiting "personal vehicles" to only one per household, only electric hybrids, and maximum weight of 800lbs.

Can you imagine the amont of people we would be able to weed out and keep off of the streets, so the rest of us safe drivers and such will be free from the carnage? The lives we save may be our own!
edit on 2/24/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Gee, one would think that if the empty-headed gun-haters were so concerned about deaths, they would better utilize their time and energy on better things such as auto deaths, drug deaths, and medical related deaths before crying about "scary" looking black OBJECTS that are completely harmless by themselves.

They have an extreme prejudice against an OBJECT and have ZERO concern of deaths in reality. But thats what Traitors and Bad Guys like to consume their energy with, stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.


edit on 24-2-2013 by ResistTreason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I agree there should be random check stops for vehicle safety. They do it to truckers as they should also do with personal vehicles. Get caught driving drunk should lose license for 2 years get caught again loss it for good .
If a person is a chronic speeder they should lose their license as well after multiple offenses . People who are constantly distracted while driving should lose their license after multiple offences .

I can see the check stop going threw as it will generate money for the state . The latter the government will start losing some revenue so I don't see it as being viable



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Wrong,

There is no way to take the risk our if everything.

People these days believe we should live forever.

More legislation you say, less freedoms I say.

It is time for everybody to accept that you are not going g to over forever.

If you are afraid to die on the road then don't get on the roads.

The last thing we need is more stagnating laws.

Don't exercise your privilege if you like, don't be making decisions for me please.

edit on 24-2-2013 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ResistTreason
Gee, one would think that if the empty-headed gun-haters were so concerned about deaths, they would use up all of there time and energy trying to prevent auto deaths,drug deaths, and medical related deaths before trying to take away "scary" looking black OBJECTS that are completely harmless by themselves.

They have an extreme prejudice against an OBJECT and have ZERO concern of deaths in reality. But thats what Traitors and Bad Guys like to consume their energy with, stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.


That's ok you are entitled to your opinion , just as we all are . If this is about a gun debate thread I want no part of it... wish the op's would come back to clarify .

Well if it is a gun debate thread maybe your government should hold a referendum let the people deiced . frankly I am tried of these gun debate threads they usually end up nasty , guess there is no tolerance for opposing views on this subject and I find that rather disgusting .









edit on 24/2/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by solomons path
 


I agree there should be random check stops for vehicle safety. They do it to truckers as they should also do with personal vehicles. Get caught driving drunk should lose license for 2 years get caught again loss it for good .
If a person is a chronic speeder they should lose their license as well after multiple offenses . People who are constantly distracted while driving should lose their license after multiple offences .

I can see the check stop going threw as it will generate money for the state . The latter the government will start losing some revenue so I don't see it as being viable



Heck . . . I'll go one further for you. In truth there is no need for anyone to have a car. Round everyone in to urban centers and provide subway, trains, busses, and trolleys.

If you refuse to live in city center . . . you must take government sanctioned transport. People pay for gas, registration, and insurance already . . . combine all of those charges for the month and make them pay a monthly fee to use this transport to a depot that will connect to metro transport. If they cannot afford the monthly sanctioned transport they can simply do what they are told and move to city center.

I would not allow those, or anyone, the use of bicycles on public streets. They cause way too many accidents, as well. Not to mention the hassle us pedestrians have to deal with when they ride on sidewalks.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 

Travel is a necessity. Guns are not.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


You clearly don't live in BC. They already do random safety checks for vehicles there, and they're a little too picky sometimes. They even get into vehicle cosmetics.

They also already have some of the toughest drinking driving laws there.
www.icbc.com...

To the person suggesting stickers on the license plate, a yearly one is enough. That already exists.
All these new legislative processes people are suggesting to be tougher, and to apply them monthly


All the extra cost is going to come from taxes, either from income, sales (on purchases), or gas hikes.

Besides this thread just seems like another pitch to wrap people up in bubble wrap, unless the gun control idea is scrapped.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ispyed
 


Nice one liner . . .


Actually, travel is not a necessity. It's a want. You want to go somewhere. You want to work some place that is not in walking distance.

If firearms are not necessary because we can make fists . . . travel by fossil fuels is not necessary because you can bend your knees and pat your feet.

The emissions from your "travel" does and has the potential to kill far more lives (human or otherwise) than the entire history of firearms does.

So YOUR necessities are ok when they kill . . . . but, others are not?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


You clearly don't live in BC. They already do random safety checks for vehicles there, and they're a little too picky sometimes. They even get into vehicle cosmetics.

They also already have some of the toughest drinking driving laws there.
www.icbc.com...

To the person suggesting stickers on the license plate, a yearly one is enough. That already exists.
All these new legislative processes people are suggesting to be tougher, and to apply them monthly


All the extra cost is going to come from taxes, either from income, sales (on purchases), or gas hikes.

Besides this thread just seems like another pitch to wrap people up in bubble wrap, unless the gun control idea is scrapped.


If you can't afford to have, maintain, safely operate a vehicle then you shouldn't have one anyway. After all . . . it's a privilage that is given to you by mother government.

BC . . . get out and use what the good lord gave you. Why would you be in a car anyway . . . it's so beautiful up there. No car . . . no firearm . . . just nature. It's not like you have dangerous wildlife in those parts . . .



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


A cars main purpose is transportation. A guns main purpose is to do harm. Whether righteous or not. If one can't see that there is a comprehension problem here.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
BC . . . get out and use what the good lord gave you. Why would you be in a car anyway . . . it's so beautiful up there. No car . . . no firearm . . . just nature.


Do you know how vast BC is? It's HUGE. Transportation is essential.


It's not like you have dangerous wildlife in those parts . . .


Right. No bears. No cougars. Pfft.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by solomons path
 


A cars main purpose is transportation. A guns main purpose is to do harm. Whether righteous or not. If one can't see that there is a comprehension problem here.



Stated purpose . . . but, it is by far the most dangerous of all forms of transportation, no?

Asbestos stated purpose was for insulation. Thalidomide stated purpose was a sedative.

I don't see those being used in such a way now . . . Why? They are too dangerous. I don't see why it's so hard for people to comprehend, either?

Maybe it's something in the water?
edit on 2/24/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/24/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join