It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2022 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Is this who the far leftists the 80 Million voted for? for a government that wants to control your every move as you drive? for a govt now making every decision on your life?


Zero Traffic is something out of science fiction,dystopian books.
Biden Admin Goal of ZERO Traffic Deaths Means Controlling Your EVERY Move




We recently heard about how the Biden administration’s “infrastructure” bill mandates “kill switches” in all new cars. Now the feds are talking about not just minimizing the number of traffic fatalities — which already has dropped markedly in the last 50 years — but reducing it to zero.



posted on Feb, 4 2022 @ 11:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 4 2022 @ 11:56 PM
link   
" You will own nothing and be 'happy' "
They intend for us to rent transportation from self-driving cars I'm sure, that's IF your social credit score is within acceptable limits. Otherwise I'm guess the self-driving car will re-direct to a 'correction camp' without your knowing.

Life will be hell if things are allowed to continue to progress that direction.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: vNex92

We've had a similar "zero car deaths" campaign in Australia for at least a few years. It just shows you how they think they can create some sort of perfect utopia despite common sense. Similar to countries which try to achieve zero covid deaths despite all logic going against such an effort. In order to really achieve the goal of zero car deaths we'd need to have 100% self-driving cars on the road, and even then I don't think we could prevent absolutely all car accidents, there will still be some very rare accidents due to things like falling trees, etc. Once again it's trading freedom for safety, I'd rather have the freedom to drive my own vehicle than the extra safety of self-driving cars. But they could make it an issue of the "greater good" the same way they do for Covid mandates. If you refuse to follow the self-driving car mandates then you must be an evil maniac who doesn't care about the life of other human beings.
edit on 5/2/2022 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 12:36 AM
link   
If I control everything you do and say and eat and breathe, I can decrease your chances of dying.

Deal?



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 12:43 AM
link   
buy a bicycle problem solved



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
buy a bicycle problem solved

The more technology gets weird the more the idea of going back to them and horses if you live outside cities seems like a reasonable idea.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92
Is this who the far leftists the 80 Million voted for? for a government that wants to control your every move as you drive? for a govt now making every decision on your life?


Did you bother to read his original statements?

Eliminate traffic deaths by improved roads, lighting, and so forth.



“The strategy recommends pilot programs to study and promote greater use of speed cameras, which the department says could provide more equitable enforcement than police traffic stops,” the AP reported.


I find it very odd that you're supporting traffic deaths and injuries as a good thing for society and fixed roads and bridges and improved roadway lighting as some sort of horrific idea thrust upon the masses.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
buy a bicycle problem solved


How are you going to keep a bicycle rider from going into the path for a self driving car and getting killed? I seem to remember this already happening,

Also a car need not be involved. Just falling off a fast moving bicycle can be fatal.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:20 AM
link   
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.


edit on 2 5 2022 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92

originally posted by: musicismagic
buy a bicycle problem solved

The more technology gets weird the more the idea of going back to them and horses if you live outside cities seems like a reasonable idea.


Hey I know what I'm talking about . 3 decades on a bike over seas.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I remember when the computer went out in my car. Gas pedal stopped working, steering unresponsive, suddenly reversing while in drive, random braking, brake pedal unresponsive, jerking all over. Thank God I happened to be in the parking lot of a car shop at the time. And people wonder why I always offer to trade my newer car for old cars before they had computers.
edit on 5-2-2022 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Oh, this should be good.

I went back to the Blaze for the actual information... I just hate it when one place runs a story and then 50 more all latch onto that story and treat it as the source. The source will be the infrastructure bill itself. But I digress...

Here's what the Blaze had to say about the contents of the bill:

The transportation secretary's plan to reach "zero roadway fatalities" is to spend $5 billion in grants and issue guidance encouraging cities to lower speed limits, adopt safer road design by creating dedicated bike and bus lanes, and improve street lighting and crosswalks.

...

Other components of the plan include pilot programs to study and promote increased use of traffic cameras; updates to the federal manual that sets the requirements for U.S. street markings and design; regulations mandating automatic emergency braking in all new passenger vehicles; new standards for car safety performance; and enforcing requirements from the infrastructure law for automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology in motor vehicles.
OK, so let's see what we have here:
  • The grants sound like a waste of money to me. Speed limits are already low in most cities, especially compared to more rural highways. Dedicated bike lanes are a good idea where there is room, and where there is enough bike traffic to justify it, but most larger cities already are doing that. Dedicated bus lanes, though? That sounds like it would require a new lane. Most cities can't just widen roads whenever they want without destroying the businesses along those roads. That means we'll have to what? Mark an existing lane for buses only? And in the process put 95% of traffic into 50-67% of the space it occupies now? That sounds less safe, not more.

  • Increased use of traffic cameras... which are already in use but rarely allowed as evidence in court. Besides, just installing cameras does nothing to prevent traffic accidents; it only serves to document them. Therefore, if traffic cameras are said to be in this plan to prevent deaths, it must logically follow that they will be used to enforce traffic laws. But the courts normally do not allow for traffic cam footage if a case goes to trial. So what's the real plan here? Changing the way the courts accept evidence?

  • I think our street signs are pretty well standardized already, even to the point that some places they can actually get pretty confusing because there are so many requirements. I don't see how increasing this problem can lead to actual safety. It reminds me of the plan a while back to change all the Interstate mile markers to kilometer markers. Good idea, right? Get with the global standard, right? Except the kilometer markers looked almost identical to mile marker (the letters "km" were tiny and underneath the much larger number) and the idea included having BOTH sets of signs in place during the "transition" stage. That led to people calling for roadside assistance or reporting accidents at the wrong place. There is a lot of difference between mile marker 157 and kilometer marker 157... close to 60 miles!

  • Auto-emergency braking. HELL NO! I will not drive a vehicle that has that on it! As an option, capable of being switched off, it's fine... probably even a good thing. But we're talking Federal government here, and the same federal government that is trying to mandate a vaccine that doesn't work! Does anyone think, even for a moment, we're talking about mandating an option? If so, I have some nice beachfront property in Iowa that I can let you have real cheap.

    Imagine for a moment... slick, icy roads, traffic is moving slowly but steadily. Suddenly someone tosses a plastic bag out of the window. The LIDAR sensors in the car behind that plastic bag sense an object ahead and rapidly approaching and the car decides to do an emergency stop, on ice. The tires lock, traction is gone, and the car swerves into another car beside it and causes a multi-car pileup.

    I repeat, as an option, fine, but as a requirement? HELL NO!

  • New standards for car safety performance... that's government for "make the cars more expensive." Present vehicles are already some of the safest that have existed in history, and safety is a major buying point for the public. If it were feasible to make the cars safer, they would already be made safer to improve sales. They are still becoming safer with each model year. Why do we need a mandate to make the engineers do more than they are already doing when they are doing the best that can be done?

  • Anti-drunk technology. OK, this would be a reasonable proposal, except that it means there is more to break down in all cars, including those that belong to drivers who do not drink. I have zero issue with this technology being used when it is reasonable to do so... as in after any incident which involves alcohol. However, installing it in all cars just means the cars cost more and need to be repaired more often. Plus, these devices will not be fool-proof. Just not going to happen. Third Rule of Engineering: "make a device fool-proof and the world will make better fools to defeat it." The more people want this device bypassed, the more likely someone will figure out a simple way to do it.
And I have to address this paragraph:

The agency added that roadway safety is "inextricably linked with the Biden-Harris Administration's equity and climate goals," observing that traffic fatalities "disproportionately affect communities of color, people living in rural areas, people with disabilities, and older adults."
So highway safety is racist now? And somehow causes carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere? That is the most bone-headed, anti-scientific statement that I can imagine given two weeks to ponder and a few gallons of 'shine! It's so inane, it's not even laughable.

That's my 2 cents worth anyway. Dangerous ideas that will overall serve more to increase costs than increase safety, implemented by people who couldn't comprehend science or technology if it were written directly on their eyeballs.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ancientlight
"Otherwise I'm guess the self-driving car will re-direct to a 'correction camp' without your knowing.


Lol, or worse just drive you off a cliff or into a dump truck head on. They have decision making algorithms that in certain circumstances will save the other vehicles (lives) over yours. I.E. a minivan it assumes more passengers, probability of children, and you are alone in your self driving nightmare. The van crosses the centerline coming at you. Your car does risk analysis, decides to drive you into the bridge abutment to minimize the casualty rate. It is a statistical or algorithmic analaysis you don't have an input in. Joys of AI and their decision making will soon be an aspect of everyday life not just in cars.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Mackinaw Island Michigan is one of the few places that has 0 automotive deaths on a regular basis. No cars allowed since 1934 if I recall.




posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Here's an idea:
Let's combine "deer crossing" signs and speed limit signs. Deer are EVERYWHERE, I had one hit the back of my car, in town, he ran between parked cars. Maybe even re-introduce wolves, at least lift the hunting limits on the damn things.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: vNex92
Is this who the far leftists the 80 Million voted for? for a government that wants to control your every move as you drive? for a govt now making every decision on your life?


Did you bother to read his original statements?

Eliminate traffic deaths by improved roads, lighting, and so forth.



“The strategy recommends pilot programs to study and promote greater use of speed cameras, which the department says could provide more equitable enforcement than police traffic stops,” the AP reported.


I find it very odd that you're supporting traffic deaths and injuries as a good thing for society and fixed roads and bridges and improved roadway lighting as some sort of horrific idea thrust upon the masses.


I find it very odd for a individual to support a servalance state.

Those in China support their servalance state because if they don't their family disappears; whats your excuse?
edit on 5-2-2022 by dandandat2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I wish these people would put some of this energy and $ into fighting Fentanyl and other drugs.

not holding my breath than any media person will ask Psacki about this

seems like everything the Democrats want to do, involves more government / control. Covid. Traffic. controlling farmers markets. restricting wood stoves.



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 08:29 AM
link   
this is what you get when you the privileged aristocracy is in charge



posted on Feb, 5 2022 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Death . . . is not under the control of the government. Death is not their domain.
Everyone dies. No one has escaped.
No one gets out of this alive.

There is a saying "Nothing is certain but death and taxes".

This is not true. If you are not a W-2 employee, you do not pay Social Security or Medicare.
If you earn no money, you do not pay income tax.
If you earn less than the standard deduction, you pay no taxes.

Taxes are not certain.
Taxes are the domain of the government.
Since government controls taxes a better goal or government is
"a goal of zero taxes"

it does not require them "to do" . . . it is easy, they only need to "stop doing"



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join