Traffic violence kills thousands and injures even more Americans every year. On World Day of Remembrance for Traffic Crash Victims, I'm sending my love to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones. It's time to #EndTrafficViolence.— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 17, 2019
ADDED: This got me looking up the word "violence" in the OED. To what extent does "violence" mean that the damaging action was intentional? The first definition is, as expected, "The deliberate exercise of physical force..."
But then there's "Great strength or power of a natural force or physical action" — for example, a storm or an earthquake. There's no mind deliberating there (though maybe there's an implication of human will and the usage is metaphorical, such as when corny writers tell you the sea was "angry").
"Violence" is also "Great intensity or severity, esp. of something destructive or undesirable. Example: " Mrs. Viveash had been reduced, by the violence of her headache, to coming home..for a rest." (That's Aldous Huxley.)
Similarly, there's "Vehemence or intensity of emotion, behaviour, or language; extreme fervour; passion." Example, from Shakespeare, "Marke me, with what violence she first lou'd the Moore." But now we've got the human mind in play again. I don't think what's being called "traffic violence" is any intensity in the traffic, just accidents, by people who didn't mean to do that (if we set aside the very tiny proportion of car damage done by an evildoer deliberately running somebody down).
"Violence" is also used to refer to restrictions imposed on nature, as in "He was obliged to attend near a Quarter of an Hour, though with great Violence to his natural Impetuosity, before he was suffered to speak" (Henry Fielding, "Tom Jones" (1749)).
And then there's the "Improper treatment or use of a word or text; misinterpretation; misapplication; alteration of meaning or intention." Again, from "Tom Jones": "A Passion which might, without any great Violence to the Word, be called Love."
But the real question here is whether we like the term "traffic violence." Does it do what its users want it to do? Of course, we're all against the harm done by cars, but most of us like our cars and want to use them for our good purposes.
পোস্টগুলি
১২৬টি মন্তব্য:
"....take our cars...."
You think that's un-possible, Perfessor?
She’s going to enforce the federal marijuana laws against the businesses licensed by state law to cut down on DUI deaths.
She's dumb. I bet she's all for #televisionviolins
I bet she also believes FedEX doesn't pay taxes...
Sort of like civility bullshit, but I would call it virtue signaling even though that term is overused and misused. Who is in favor of continuing Traffic Violence? And what is the definition? I'll google it to see if I can figure out what it is.
#EndTrafficViolence
Proving once again the Democratic left will politicize and corrupt any issue for partisan reasons.
Totalitarians going to advocate for totalitarianism every single fucking time.
Traffic violence? Doesn't she mean traffic accidents?
Unfortunately the development of self driving cars that would almost certainly dramatically reduce injuries and deaths due to traffic accidents would be greatly slowed by the onerous regulations and taxes of a President Warren.
Traffic violence is mostly a Muslim thing.
does she mean road rage?
Has Liawatha run out of pander groups?
What they envision is self-driving cars only.
We need a 2nd Amendment for vehicles and driving them.
Violence-
Noun: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
How many of these fatalities are intentional?
Reason # 7834262823 why I can never support fascists that bill themselves as progressives.
She's going to end all traffic accidents? Cool. I think I'll vote for her. Unless someone else comes along and promises Utopia. Then I'll vote for them instead. Trump's a piker compared to these folks.
sounds like you want to take our cars
AndrewYang is explicit about that. She’s being a bit more coy.
Does she have a plan?
Does her plan mean that the government can listen in, inside our cars? Monitor what we listen to? Monitor where we go? Monitor all that goes on inside the car?
Is this for the common good?
What kind of tax will be extracted?
Utopia!
If we say "Biden" or "Clinton" inside our cars, can we be arrested?
Does her plan mean that the government can listen in, inside our cars? Monitor what we listen to? Monitor where we go? Monitor all that goes on inside the car?
Do you have OnStar?
They do want to take our cars. What do you think the fascination with trains is about?
I would definitely assume that traffic violence was a non-English speaker's way of getting across the concept of road rage.
"Noun: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
See my addition to the post. I had that idea too, but reading all the definitions of violence, I can't say it does violence to the word "violence" to say "traffic violence" to refer to accidents. If the action was intense and damaging, "violence" isn't wrong.
But is it effective? I think it suggests such negativity toward cars that people who love their cars are going to be resistant. It's a good slogan for city people who don't use cars, but off-putting to most of us.
I thought it was about sex trafficking at first.
Traffic accidents cannot, without great Violence to the Word, be called Violence.
You don't even have to be a subscriber. The technology comes already installed in your car if it's a late model. If you subscribe, do you have to flip a switch? No. They turn it on or off.
And of course your phone is in your car with you too, right?
What are you up to in there anyway, Bleach?
Ride Fast
Replying to @ewarren
"No one needs a vehicle that travels faster than 20 mph. And large capacity cars are a problem as well. We need a waiting period, a restriction on resales, and a car buyback program. Don’t get me started on Jeeps. No one needs a car that was originally designed for war."
Looked it up and discovered there is a .org for this. They do set a target of 2050 for the elimination of what most of us call vehicular accidents. Significantly more government is recommended, along with more public expenditure.
"They do want to take our cars. What do you think the fascination with trains is about?"
Yes, Warren's idiot hashtag is just one of those little power-grab stalking horses for imposing more control on the prole's lives. In the name of The Children or AGW or something.
Just remember that SUV's are still out there killing people.
Pedestrians and automobiles clash. Violence breaks out.
Autonomous cars will effectively end vehicular violence. Liberal free marketeer Elon Musk is on the job while Trump apologists kvetching kibitz from the peanut gallery eating fast food to comfort their empty soles.
What are you up to in there anyway, Bleach?
I'm committing treason and witness tampering. Just thinking about the Biden family grift machine.
J. Farmer said...
Traffic violence? Doesn't she mean traffic accidents?
No, she means Traffic Violence, whatever the Hell that is. Haven't you ever seen anyone play Buzzword Bingo?
Lizzie Warren took an axe.....
Folks the scary part of this is that Warren is a serious contender for the presidency of the United States.
If I recall correctly, deaths from traffic accidents started declining as penalties for drunk driving became increasingly severe in the 1980's. They started rising somewhat as texting became popular. They are still not as high as the rates before 1980. (I have not checked the data. I am relying on memory).
If Warren wants to reduce traffic deaths, she should take away cell phones. She might also get rid of bike lanes. (We get a lot of biking deaths here in Tucson from people riding with traffic. Serious cyclists do not use the off street bike paths because they cannot go as fast).
Warren represents the nanny state better than Bloomberg. She will reduce all risk and make life totally predictable and safe, as long as we let the government completely run our lives. It is a brave new world that she offers.
SteveW 10:14 - thread winner
Looked it up and discovered there is a .org for this. They do set a target of 2050 for the elimination of what most of us call vehicular accidents. Significantly more government is recommended, along with more public expenditure.
ding ding ding.
Autonomous cars will effectively end vehicular violence. Liberal free marketeer Elon Musk is on the job while Trump apologists kvetching kibitz from the peanut gallery eating fast food to comfort their empty soles.
Souls.
The US traffic death rate has been decreasing since there was traffic
Death rate per person is < 1/2 of what it was in the 60s and 70s.
Death rate per mile driven is 1/20th of what it was in the 30s.
first they came for the guns, but i did not speak out- as i wasn't a gunowner
then they came for the pronouns, but i did not speak out- as i was fond of Proper nouns
Then they came for my car — and there was no one left to speak for me.
Warren is racist against cars and *FGMTMNHJV !
*Ford GM Toyota Mazda Nissan Hyundai Jaguar Volvo
No one needs as assault vehicle.
You don't need 8 cylinders to kill a deer.
All of our imperfections and all of life's risks must be solved with a tax hike, a government program and layers of un-elected Vindman-esqe bureaucrats.
Remember when George Clintonopolis cornered Romney on Romney's pending tampon restrictions?
It's all part of the same program. Trickle up.
The more Warren talks, the more she beclowns herself.
Calling Musk a free marketer is like calling a car wreck traffic violence.
"Tragedy Butt"
late '90's Someone took out a full page ad in a lesser NYC paper (Our Town?)
re: the deaths of Lady Diana, Mother Theresa, Sonny Bono, J.Denver
decrying the tragic loss, and arranging for a rally to protest this.
The tag line was something like this:
"C'mon, people! Let's get out there on Day X--
...and let's kick some Tragedy butt!!"
Thanks for biting on the flashy bait Bob.
Traffic violence? Doesn't she mean traffic accidents?
Just wait till you hear her plan for traffic justice!
Fredandethelstien using unmoored stats like a Bible thumping antivaxxer. Ego dipso factoid problem solved. What a maroon
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
You don't need 8 cylinders to kill a deer.
my dear Bob-- that just killed me!!
****
AAA: the new NRA
I think that there are several aspects to this. Fairly obviously for those of us not living in deep blue urban shitholes like Chicago, your chances are much higher to be killed by a car or truck than an errant firearm. Moreover, cars and trucks mostly utilize internal combustion engines that according to CAGW hoaxers and their victims is going to destroy the world In as short as eight years. Gotta have wind and solar fueled electrical vehicles in-order to save the world from impending doom. Moreover those vehicles need to be autonomous, because we can’t be trusted to drive safely. Never mind that the technology just isn’t there yet for any of this, esp outside of the CA coast and SE (batteries still suck, and optical/laser/lidar sensors still ice up, in the cold).
One reason to get us out of our self driven cars is to control our movements. Power and control over recalcitrant subjects is always a concern of statists and progressives. After all, we might not want to live in places that they want us to live (like those crime infested blue urban shitholes that they are so enamored with).
Another aspect is that this push to reduce automobile violence naturally leads to a push for more mass transit, and in particular trains of one type or another. Obviously, trains significantly reduce transportation flexibility, and thus freedom. This is, of course, a feature, and not a bug, for socialists like Warren. But probably as importantly, trains have offered unparalleled opportunities for skimming off much of the money spent by the politically connected. This has been going on for better than a century and a half, so no one should be the least bit surprised that so much of the money spent on CA’s train from nowhere to nowhere went into the pockets of those with close ties to the state’s Dem party elites, and esp their families. Didn’t NYC just spend a century building a new subway line (just as the safety and quality of life riding subways there took a precipitous nosedive). The goal is never actually having a brand new train, or the like, but rather the process of building it, which is where the graft comes in. In other words, they are so intent on building new trains, because that is where they make their money.
Listen you fake Indian, nobody is going to elect anyone to be the POTUS if they only have one pair of black pants. So, there!
“Death rate per person is < 1/2 of what it was in the 60s and 70s.”
Much of that is technology. I had a 1956 Nash Statesman for awhile, until it tried to kill me, evicting me at an inconvenient time. No seatbelts. 1956 was also the year that the AR-10 was developed. We would have to wait another two years for the AR-15, a scaled down AR-10, in order to shoot lighter rounds that are more controllable in fully automatic fire. Imagine being stuck with cars like my old 1956 Nash Statesman. That is precisely what the gun grabbers want by their constant demands to ban “assault weapons”, limiting guns available to the general population to 60 year old and older technology.
Bruce thinks Althouse pays by the word. Inflating your Billings must be a tough habit to break.
Blogger Howard said...
Bruce thinks Althouse pays by the word. Inflating your Billings must be a tough habit to break.
Unlike your cheap snarks, Howard, I look for ward to Bruce's posts.
From "The Rise of the Comfort College,: by Steven B. Gerrard: "Williams College’s long year of troubles intensified on the first day of the spring semester. An assistant professor of English sent an email to her students saying she would not be teaching; she had gone on medical leave, citing 'a refusal to continue business as usual' in the face of 'the College’s violent practices.'" In "a meeting for faculty of color called by the dean of the faculty, one professor asked for evidence of 'violent practices.' Another professor responded that 'to ask for evidence of violent practices is itself a violent practice.'" https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-speech-is-no-longer-safe-speech-at-today-s-elite-colleges
When autonomous cars become the order of the day, survivalists and free-staters will stash carefully maintained '75 Ford pickups in rural pole barns and grungy urban lock-ups.
In "a meeting for faculty of color called by the dean of the faculty, one professor asked for evidence of 'violent practices.' Another professor responded that 'to ask for evidence of violent practices is itself a violent practice.'"
This is why colleges are going to go away,. There's a video of a violent demonstration at some college over conservative students setting up a table to hand out literature. Most of the violent demonstrators are black.
Look at the video. Nobody is going to be willing to pay for this crap much longer.
In her mind, Traffic Violence must mean, or at least include, the violence traffic perpetrates on our environment.
Thin Lizzie wants us to know that when it comes to auto accidents, she's agin' 'em.
Nonapod: "...the development of self driving cars that would almost certainly dramatically reduce injuries and deaths due to traffic accidents...." I agree fully with the point you make about Liawatha's mindset (if that doesn't do too much violence to the word "mind"). But I'm not so sure that we'd be better off with self-driving cars except in very limited circumstances (controlled-access roadways, no human-driven vehicles present, etc), with any foreseeable technology.
I have this mental picture of dozens of vehicles moving at high speed, close together, under the control of software that works as well as Boeing's 737 MAX MCAS system...
Ignorance Is Bliss asked "How many of these fatalities are intentional?"
Mostly the subset caused by Muslims.
In "a meeting for faculty of color called by the dean of the faculty, one professor asked for evidence of 'violent practices.' Another professor responded that 'to ask for evidence of violent practices is itself a violent practice.
We seem to have developed large group of well credentialed, poorly educated, angry neurotics. I mean seriously neurotic with a high potential for personality decompensation and emotional breakdowns.
It does not bode well for the future.
When autonomous cars become the order of the day, survivalists and free-staters will stash carefully maintained '75 Ford pickups in rural pole barns and grungy urban lock-ups.
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
Howard typed "Autonomous cars will effectively end vehicular violence.". I do expect that autonomous vehicles could reduce accidents. The problem is that, as with most technology, you have to be able to control the variables. To be most effective, you necessarily have to reduce the unpredictable nature of humans, by taking them out of the mix.
And, Howard, to the point of the post- do you use the term "traffic violence" to refer to accidents or intentional misuse?
What they really want: #EndVerbalViolence
Verbal violence is speech that makes me feel unsafe. And, I get to decide what that is, OK?
I think, ultimately, autonomous vehicles will prove to be pie in the sky. I mean, seriously, you are putting the lives of millions of people at a time in the hands of technology that has to be interconnected wirelessly, or else it won't work. Are you so certain that such a thing wouldn't become the target of muderous miscreants. The scale for disaster just seems too high to me. Seriously, there are already issues with human-controlled cars that have wireless interfaces to their on-board computers- what happens when the point of the hack gives access to hundreds, thousands, or millions of cars at the same time, and with far more actual control?
@bob boyd
And "dreaming with your uncle by the fireside" will be a thing of the past, unless it's a solar-powered fireplace
Let's not rush this.
" I had a 1956 Nash Statesman for awhile, until it tried to kill me, evicting me at an inconvenient time. No seatbelts."
I just wish they could make cars with character again. Go to the lot and they're all borrrring.
Let us speak of disarmament with her native tribe... the Cherokee, and ask how that worked out for them. In fact, let us consider what conditions we may place on the 19th amendment equal to those on the 2nd. We can put a stop to this nonsense.
If we could prevent the democrats from killing each other, gun violence would experience a near vertical drop.
Howard, for example, exhibits zero behaviors one could see licensing of any firearms to.
Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
"Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime"
I can't listen to that song while driving without speeding. Have you ever read the story it was based on? https://www.scribd.com/doc/33762958/A-Nice-Morning-Drive
Yancey Ward said, "I think, ultimately, autonomous vehicles will prove to be pie in the sky."
Couldn't agree more. I used to write software for business applications. This is many orders of magnitude simpler than "autonomous driving", and I know how hard it was to get bugs out of my own software. I can't believe autonomous driving software will ever be sufficiently reliable to trust on the road with millions of cars under millions of subtle road conditions.
And you've touched on three additional (and massive) complications: inter-connectedness (which means the driving software has to rely on other "connectedness" software), the wireless connections probably aren't 100% reliable, and the risk of hacking.
If the industry survives the inevitable (and probably huge) lawsuits for the inevitable violent failures, maybe we'll eventually settle down to a peaceful coexistence with autonomous driving and its flaws, but I think that's a long, long way off.
Have you ever read the story it was based on?
Thanks Phil. I hadn't, but I just did. 1982!
’Just wait till you hear her plan for traffic justice!’
Nice.
Something must be done.
Autonomous vehicles? Perhaps, if the tech develops.
Increased urban density negating the need for individual transport? A very long term solution.
I'm not sure, but there may be a better way.
I think it involves drones, with bullpup missiles, like airwolf,
(though maybe there's an implication of human will and the usage is metaphorical, such as when corny writers tell you the sea was "angry").
“The sea was angry that day, my friends: like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli!”
Progressives have always hated the fact that people could get in their cars and drive away from their taxing schemes.
It's never going to be 'one day we wake up and all vehicles are autonomous.' If they happen at all, they're going to creep onto our streets and highways one at a time and drive everyone nuts - going 55 when everyone's used to going 65 or faster. Autonomous trucking might work, but not autonomous cars. We'll be 'rubbin' them onto the shoulder.
Bob Boyd at 11:50 posted the first thing I thought of when reading this post.
The Motor Law.
Another bad nanny-state idea Warren types will be pushing here if they aren't already:
The controversial [new, EU] rule means that new cars will be fitted with speed limiters by 2022, while older cars will have to have the technology by 2024
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/new-cars-fitted-breathalysers-speed-20866711
I guess violence is another word that is about to lose its meaning.
I can't listen to that song while driving without speeding.
Ditto.
'77 280Z
is Warren, like her native ancestors, simply wheel-averse?
The progressive globalists have your future all mapped out for you. First, you're going to live in a hovel. They won't call it that, but that's what it will be. Tiny, crammed in among many, many others (to minimize your 'footprint' don't you know), where you'll have little personal property because there won't be anywhere to store it. Then you'll walk, bike, or take public transit everywhere, since cars will be outlawed or severely limited. You'll eat delicious and nutritious meals of bug-based protein powder, since consuming chickens, cows, and the like is cruel and contributes to global warming. And, of course, you won't be having as many--or any--children, since (again) you're living in a hovel where you have room for them anyhow, and because overpopulation--by deplorables--is a climate catastrophe.
You may or may not have a job. Probably not, since automated factories will probably produce most of what we need by then. All the Elite (tm) really need you for is your vote, which you will gladly sell to them in return for this glorious cradle-to-grave welfare state, at least until they can decrease the surplus population to manageable levels--i.e., the Elite (tm) and just enough proles to provide personal services to them. By then they won't even need your votes any longer, just your incessant praise and adulation, plus the use of your hands, mouth and genitals to service them on demand.
“The controversial [new, EU] rule means that new cars will be fitted with speed limiters by 2022, while older cars will have to have the technology by 2024”
Serves the Germans right. No more breezing down their Autobahns in high powered Porsches, Mercedes, or BMWs. Why spend the money on a vehicle that can make that fun, when the EU now makes that illegal? Maybe good with it for the Germans, but I can’t see the Italians going down easily here.
She's going to end all traffic accidents? Cool. I think I'll vote for her.
Nah. Biden is going to end cancer.
"Liberals" (by which I mwan of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government humpers and State fellators") love force, and yet hate violence. Or so they say. Note the contradiction.
All Violence Matters!
Why screw around with complicated electronics that people will soon find ways to defeat? Just re-invent the wheel. In other words, outlaw conventional wheels in favor of an alternative shape.
No, really, think about it. It would certainly slow us all down to safer speeds if wheels weren't round anymore. I mean, when was the last time you got into a wreck with a car that had square wheels? Like never.
Not to mention how much it would stimulate the economy if everybody suddenly had to buy new tires and rims.
I see no way to interpret "end traffic violence" -- as compared to, say, "reduce traffic violence" or "eliminate unnecessary traffic violence" -- as taking away our cars. Even autonomous vehicles won't be perfect.
“Increased urban density negating the need for individual transport? A very long term solution.”
I think maybe very long run. There is, of course, no real need for moving everyone to the inner cities, except to control them. Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change have been repeatedly exposed as frauds propounded by the left in order to gain power over our lives and our money. And we are closing in fairly quickly on global ZPG, with most of the holdouts any more being ignorant Muzzies and third world peasants in Africa. Meanwhile states like MT, WY, and AK have population densities through much of those states of a couple of percent of DC. (1-2 per square mile excluding the cities).
I don’t think that very many people, at least in this country, really like being packed in close like sardines, forced to listen to every noise their neighbors make, always worried about crime and squalor. It’s exciting for some when young, with all of the night life, culture, etc. but it’s really a horrid place to raise kids. Hence, the suburbs, where you can grave a yard, a house separated from your neighbors on both sides, decent schools, law enforcement, and enforcement of quality of life ordinances. No shitting or shooting up on the streets. No camping in cardboard villas or tents. And still close enough in many cases to urban downtowns to take advantage of their amenities.
Also factor in that as we have moved from a factory economy to a more service oriented one, there is less and less reason to live packed in tight. Asked son-in-law Saturday why they couldn’t join us in MT for half the year, getting out of the Phoenix heat and working remotely (my partner wants her daughter close). I got him thinking. He admitted that it was feasible. They already work in an Internet enabled business. We shall see. There is a definite allure to being within 5-10 minutes of a National Forest in all four directions. Esp when I promised to buy a Jeep if they do move up here (they are selling the Polaris we sold them back to us, because it is too dangerous in and around PHX).
someone who didn't speak English killed 4 innocent people in their cars as they waited in traffic.
Out of state truck driver came barreling down I-70 with hot breaks. (no brakes) and rammed into cars and killed 4.
Our influx of Spanish speakers can press 2 for Spanish, but the road signs are all in English.
Another bonus to illegal immigration and too much legal immigration.
As long as our elites can get limo rides - the masses of deplorables can suck eggs.
Right Liz?
“The controversial [new, EU] rule means that new cars will be fitted with speed limiters by 2022, while older cars will have to have the technology by 2024”
Not nearly as bad as "speed limiters" sounds.
See "intelligent speed assistance" on page 35/36.
End Tax Violence.
Not nearly as bad as "speed limiters" sounds.
All public officials should meet the following minimum requirements: Upon assuming office, official shall purchase and install a lamppost, suitable for hanging, in front of official's residence. Such installation shall provide a clear view of the lamppost from within and without the residence to provide official with continual awareness of applicable limits.
Defining violence down.
Lizzie Warren took an axe,
Gave my paycheck forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave my net worth forty-one.
@BB&Hammers....
Does her plan mean that the government can listen in, inside our cars? Monitor what we listen to? Monitor where we go? Monitor all that goes on inside the car?
If your car is GM and has OnStar, every single question you ask is answered in the affirmative, whether or not your OnStar subscription is active.
Be careful. Be VERY careful.
I went to Rabel’s link and he is right:
it shall not affect the possibility, for the drivers, of exceeding the system’s prompted vehicle speed;
Basically it is a set of features that I already have in my luxury German car. I don’t mind them at all, they are useful. I kind of wish I could set the warning to ten MPH over the speed limit, which would make it more useful in real life, IMHO, but it’s fine. I read a lot of stories about it that made it sound heinous. #FakeNews!
I was wondering, since I have this system, how they were going to deal with certain situations, for instance it always thinks the speed limit is 25 in a school zone, regardless of time limitations or flashing lights. Sometimes signs say “End Speed Zone” and it cant’ interpret that until you pass a speed limit sign. It has a nose camera. I noticed in Maryland that it was often wrong, and realized it was because their route signs look like speed limit signs. You hit a bug splatted across the tiny camera, it stops working. When I get on the state route from the road I live on, it thinks that the speed limit is 25 mph for a couple of miles. It would cause accidents.
On the plus side, when you drive into Canada, it converts the signs to MPH for you. It seems ridiculous to update used cars to have this feature though. My car uses a heads up display for it. I guess you could put a device on the dash.
Lizzie Warren is quite tiresome. What a scold. Why won't she just end all violence?
Do you notice how Democrats never call for supporting your freedom? Everything they want to do involves forcing people pay for things they don't want, or ban things they do want. What Democrat policy is not one of those two demands?
If you really want to enforce something that would make the roads safer, it would be a minimum speed limit. I'm convinced that most accidents, at least on highways, are due to the upstream effects of slow drivers forcing faster ones to maneuver around them. The slow driver is like a rock in the stream, and creates turbulence ruining the smooth laminar flow you get from fast drivers. A faster driver passing you is far less dangerous than a slower one forcing you to find a way around them. One slow driver in the fast lane can affect everyone behind them for miles, forcing dozens of drivers to shuck and jive around each other trying to find a way through the clog created by just one slow poke. It's all eliminated by simply staying out of the passing lane unless you are actively passing someone, and by passing I mean git-r-done.
One thing I've seen happen both in my former neighborhood in L.A. and my new one in Vegas is when some drunk gets hit by a car because they chose to walk across a dark road without a crosswalk, that area then becomes a speed trap with a ridiculously slow speed limit. One bad decision by one person one time messes up things for thousands of drivers forever. "Better than nothing is a high standard."
OF COURSE they want us to get rid of our cars. This isn’t new.
Putting my gun rack on a bicycle is just gonna look silly, but I'll do it if they force me.
UK has a whole bunch of 'knife violence' right now. In fact they are requiring bars to have first aid kits with tourniquets now! Not kidding! So 'car violence' is not to far-fetched as for liberal thinking. They have such slogans as 'turn in your knife and save a life'. So maybe it will be 'turn in your car and walk real far'! Just say it helps the populace slim down...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-48513088
https://news.sky.com/story/hundreds-of-london-bars-to-get-bleed-control-kits-to-help-knife-victims-11863792
https://www.foxnews.com/world/united-kingdom-knife-crime-london-police-bleed-control-kits-nightclub-bar
Blogger Howard said...Bruce thinks Althouse pays by the word. Inflating your Billings must be a tough habit to break.
Bruce Hayden has more interesting facts, ideas and coonclusions in a single post than you have in your idiotic hit-and-run snippets all year.
If you really want to enforce something that would make the roads safer, it would be a minimum speed limit. I'm convinced that most accidents, at least on highways, are due to the upstream effects of slow drivers forcing faster ones to maneuver around them.
Not a problem in Arizona. I used to commute to Phoenix twice a week from Tucson and the speed limit of 75 is a sort of minimum. I drive fast but I would be going 85 and getting passed like I was standing still. I would see semi-trailers going 85. Most speeding tickets I see in AZ are on trucks.
Howard is a troll. You see that he never posts anything with information. Trolls post get get somebody to respond.
Doing a forced lock out of cell phones in cars will work wonders. People accept the carnage caused by cell phone distractions. Life is a risk. The collateral damage of cell phones is an acceptable trade off.
"I would see semi-trailers going 85. Most speeding tickets I see in AZ are on trucks."
That's interesting. Around here I run just over 70 on the interstate and never ever see a big rig speeding.
"Bruce Hayden has more interesting facts...”
Howard has a short attention span.
"Of course, we're all against the harm done by cars, but most of us like our cars and want to use them for our good purposes."
"Of course, we're all against the harm done by guns, but most of us like our guns and want to use them for our good purposes."
Ann, it isn't the violence the left wants to stop when they push for an end to gun violence.
It is the private ownership of guns and the exercise of the individual right of self defense the left wants to end.
Gun control and ending gun violence will both result in more criminal violence, as has been demonstrated from the south side of Chicago to Hong Kong's streets.
Ending traffic violence, likewise, means we ride in buses, not our own cars.
And eventually, in cattle cars on the way to the camps.
To hell with that, to hell with Warren, and to hell with all do-gooder totalitarians.
Exactly so, mikee. And you've probably heard the Berkeley prof saying rural people are bad and that everyone should live in cities. Presumably, we'd be a lot easier to surveil and control that way.
"Hell yes we're going to take your Buick!"
Danno said...
Blogger Howard said...Bruce thinks Althouse pays by the word. Inflating your Billings must be a tough habit to break.
Bruce Hayden has more interesting facts, ideas and conclusions in a single post than you have in your idiotic hit-and-run snippets all year.
11/18/19, 6:33 PM
Nacho Howie has his clown nose on. Wish Chickelit was here, he could do a chirbit of Howard drive-bys in a Speedy Gonzales accent. I ain't no steenking Mahrreene! You got me confyoosed weeth my brrrotherr!
Blogger Howard said...
Bruce thinks Althouse pays by the word. Inflating your Billings must be a tough habit to break.
Unlike your cheap snarks, Howard, I look for ward to Bruce's posts
Thanks for the support.
This wasn’t the first time that Howard has made this complaint. This type of ad hominem attack seems typical of him. Unfortunately, I don’t think that it works as well here, as it might in other venues. I know that a lot of people just assume that the person being criticized in this way has to be right, since his attacker doesn’t appear to have any persuasive counter arguments, but at least in my case, that isn’t always true. I know I sometimes throw a bunch of stuff together that I think are connected. But maybe they aren’t. It is times like this that I sometimes wish that we had more leftist commenters here like Robert Cook, who may be misguided (he is a leftist, after all), but he does honestly and seriously engage my points with counter arguments.
Sitting at the stoplight waiting for green
Pulled up next to me a noise machine
Symphonic orchestra sat on top
Tuxedoed conductor, hair like a mop
Heavenly music, delicious as sin
The sweetest sound was the traffic violins.
CAR WARS
Think I'll git me a beer.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন