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

Originally posted by intrepid

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.

So . . . What did the pioneers use . . . rocket ships?

You seem to live in fear of what goes on around you . . . is that your only reason for having a car?

I have a feeling the op is one that agrees with the TSA security at airports.

Go ahead and show them your junk. After all it is only a friendly strip search.

More legislation leads s further away from our roots.

It really doesn't matter though because people these days believe you should make it through life without a scratch.

Where else can you break onto someone's house get injured and Sue.

We obviously need more regulation of vehicles. Every vehicle should be registered. Every driver should be licensed and tested to be sure they are able to drive safely and every driver should be required to care insurance, just like guuuhhhns....never mind. Carry on.

Originally posted by solomons path
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?

You are making a case FOR guns? I think you just proved the exact opposite. Thanks.

Originally posted by solomons path
So . . . What did the pioneers use . . . rocket ships?

They used the best technology they had at the time. Same as we do today.

You seem to live in fear of what goes on around you . . . is that your only reason for having a car?

Barring your first erroneous assumption, let me ask about another of yours. What makes you think I have a car?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by solomons path
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?

You are making a case FOR guns? I think you just proved the exact opposite. Thanks.

Where did I mention guns in that post . . . ? You made the claim that cars stated purpose was benign . . . I showed you why that doesn't matter. Again, we are back to a comprehension problem. You were the one that brought up guns and their purpose. I've been talking about cars, mostly, or transportation in general.

I don't really care if you own a vehicle or not . . . as I don't think you should. They are death machines. You said BC was too big and dangerous for life without a vehicle . . . I just commented that you seem quite frightened to live in a world/place without them. Maybe you should move someplace more convenient/safer . . . leave BC for those that aren't afraid to live their lives in wooded peace and splendor?


ETA - also . . .IF we were talking about guns . . . How would my statment prove your point or me wrong? You said a gun's only purpose is to harm . . . They seem to be doing that quite well? So, how does my analogy prove that wrong? They work how they are supposed to.

Now a car and their stated purpose on the other hand . . . that's another story. They may work for transport, but like my examples, the benefits are not worth the carnage cause and lives they destroy. You may disagree, but I'm sure the cigarette, asbestos, and pharm industries disagree about the dangers of their products too. Comprehension . . . jeez!

With all the legislation for transportation being proposed in this thread - no vehicles, no bicycles, live in cities within walking distance.....

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.

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.

Hopefully this is all sarcasm

Although if we all went back to horses ( those of us up here in this large, mostly empty country), our soil would be very well fertilized, and there would be pooper scooper jobs in the cities.
We could then use the manure from the city streets to help power up our cities.
It could likely be dried and burned as alternative fuel?

Maybe that dude is really onto something

I like horses
I wonder where we put our ownership stickers.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Hopefully this is all sarcasm

Although if we all went back to horses ( those of us up here in this large, mostly empty country), our soil would be very well fertilized, and there would be pooper scooper jobs in the cities.
We could then use the manure from the city streets to help power up our cities.
It could likely be dried and burned as alternative fuel?

Maybe that dude is really onto something

I like horses

I wonder where we put our ownership stickers.

Now you are getting it . . . get rid of the death machines. What's wrong with nature?




Oh crap . . . There's goes my theory!! Nevermind.

On second thought, I never did like seagulls anyway . . .

reply to post by dainoyfb

Yes, and I am much more afraid (altho near nil) of being hit on the road by a tired trucker or a drunk driver than I am of being attacked by a "wacked-out" (ptsd) retired veteran with a semi-automatic AR-15 who is suicidal and wants to go out with a "bang!" (taking others with him).

reply to post by snowspirit

I want to see Diane Feinstein WALK.

reply to post by liejunkie01

IF you have read my threads on Gun Control then you should know that my tongue is half way nestled in my cheek on this one (vis a vis gun control). Obviously we need laws and regulations (safety regs, speed limits, drivers licenses, etc) to ensure safety on the road but horses and buggies (think equivalent to muskets at the time) were not a tool to insure the liberty of the people against government tyranny either.

reply to post by beezzer

I bet statistics will show that most traffic fatalities are NOT caused by cars with cosmetic speed features like "spoilers" and "mag wheels" (the on the road equivalent of an assault weapon).

How about we all just stay at home and have the govt bring us our needs like food, clothing etc, get fat lazy and have no reason to go anywhere?
/scarcasm

Hey, big surprise! Your getting out there driving on motorways where MORE than 50% of the drivers have a cell phone to they're ear, are texting, are playing games on tablets. Combine that with there are MORE people on the roads driving that CAN NOT read traffic signs, because they don't read or speak English. So there is a VERY slight statistical anomaly, because, the problem is apparently, more 'highway' deaths. How did they break down? How many were bus crashes? how many were related to weather? how many were related to cells/tablets? a 'jump' from 34,000 to 36,000? sounds more like a slight hiccup instead of a jump. And anyway, if the extra 2000 were people who were texting and driving, then it's problematical. !

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I see where you are coming from.

I work around the granite city and east St Louis areas. I live approximately 65 miles south east of there. I
Had a Guy pull out in front of me on the highway Friday morning and I almost had a serious accident. I locked up my brakes and swerved into the right lane.

My point being, I drive more than some. I don't think stricter regulation can help when someone forgets to look the other way and directly crosses your path. It was driver error. It happens because we are not perfect.

It really shook me up for a bit.

reply to post by ispyed

Guns are not necessary unless some thugs kick down your door at 3am....travel after that could be a moot point if no guns are accessible to defend against them.

I think insurance companies should offer discounts to cars with a breathalyzer installed. They would probably save millions in payouts.

I think something like half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. Give people some money saving incentive and an actual physical inability to drive when they've been drinking and watch the fatalities drop. Insurance companies make more money, we pay less for insurance and we save lives.

I had to look for many months to find a decent job, and when I did, it was 40 miles away. So no, I cannot concur with your idea of making it more difficult than it already is to make this drive...sorry.

reply to post by Gazrok


It's almost frightening the way people are carrying on about "omg, ban everything" just because of the US talking about gun control (people controlling their guns).

We all know that government agencies read the Internet to get a feel for what the public is thinking.

I understand that there's a second amendment right to have guns.

After Sandy Hook though, there was discussions of how more guns are needed, to keep people safe, to the point of some (too many) people being accepting of armed guards in the schools, theatres, malls, street corners......
Like a typical police state.

Do people not see something wrong with where this is going?
Do people not see that we do not want more regulation in every single area of people's lives?

I get concerned as a Cdn, because our countries are trying to coordinate laws and regulations.
We already have too many stifling laws and regulations.