There were a total of 17,250 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the U.S. in 2016.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/


also in 2016

there were 10,111 fatalities due to speeding

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data


proposal:

since A: speeding is illegal. PERIOD.
and B: 10 thousand people would still be alive if someone wasnt speeding.


Why dont we invest in changing auto standards so that cars cannot go above the fastest stated speed limit in the US (80)mph ... who is with me?


Build that wall and slow down those cars!

Traffic deaths are caused by speeding. They are caused by driving like an idiot at a high rate of speed.

speed limits are set to standards of driving speeds under certain conditions for safety.
exceeding them detracts from the safety of all. especially during moments of changes in conditions.

the higher the speed, the more difficult to maintain control when conditions change.

speeding can and does contribute to traffic deaths at both high and low speeds as well as to lesser injuries, and damage to property.

Trouble is, in some circumstances a burst of speed to avoid trouble can save lives.

That said there's no reason for any vehicle to be able to go over 100mph...

There's also the simple fact that a lot of road deaths and injuries are caused by negligent drivers, e.g. drunk / drugged ones. Speed is only part of the issue.

You're probably better off limiting guns rather than worrying about cars.

A] the highest speed limit in the U.S. isn't 80...
it is at least 85,cuz I have driven on public roads with a 85MPH speed limit,not to mention toll roads.
and,what would you do in the case of an emergency,where it would be necessary to drive faster due a medical emergency,or face the possible loss of life?

b] who says that people are only going to drive their cars on public roads?
I know LOTS of people who recreationally drive their everyday driven cars on tracks at much higher speeds than 85.

c]most car wrecks,including ones that result in a fatality occur at speeds well below 80 MPH!

unless you are able to implement computer controls that are capable of reading the speed limit for the exact stretch of road you are currently driving on,electronic speed limit control is going to be useless.
I have had GPS devices that tell me what it THINKS the speed limit is SUPPOSED to be,and trust me...a great deal of the time,it is incorrect!
weather would also be a very big factor that would also have to be figured into the equation,since it greatly dictates what the SAFE speed should be,not just the road.

a MUCH BETTER way to reduce traffic accidents/fatalitie would be to legislate that a blood alcohol content Breathalyzer device be manadtory on every car,but that would technically be an unwanted invasion of people's privacy,and a violation of people's constitutional rights.
in order for a breathalyzer to be installed on someone's car,a judge has to specifically rule that they be forced to have one installed,and he must be able to cite a specific reason why it is needed in each individual case,such as prior convictions for DUI,and that they have been ruled to be a habitual offender,otherwise,they are unconstitutional.

a MUCH BETTER way to reduce traffic accidents/fatalities would be to mandate that people's cell phones would not be able to operate if they are moving at more than 3MPH..that includes ALL cell phones,not just the drivers phone,because it would not be possible to know exactly which phone in the moving car would be the operators,so they would ALL have to be disabled while moving,and would only work once the vehicle has slowed down to below the set speed.

but,i don't see THAT happening,either!!

hopefully,in the very near future,autonomous,self driving cars will be able to take the 'human' factor out of the equation,and ALL of the problems we are talking about will be solved.

I believe THAT would be a much more attainable goal than any of the others I have discussed.

Also Wiki reckons about 200,000 are killed in the US each year due to pollution from vehicles... so focus on that if you want to reduce deaths.

I'm in the UK and we have the second safest roads in Europe with a still sad figure of about 1800 deaths on our roads. Our population is 1/5th of yours, yet our road deaths are under 1/18th of yours, and we don't limit the cars speed.

I don't know much about your driving laws, but from the movies / tv shows it looks like you can still use your mobiles whilst driving?

no. texting and driving is also illegal.

I was just curious how many would take the strict 'the law is the law so prevent anyone from ever not following it' determination that build the wall folks have.

I was curious how far we could take the 'if they hadnt been able to break the law a person would not have died' reasoning .. on another issue of law.

Towns hire traffic cops to make money off of speeders. Having the maximum speed limit default to cruise control would be more effective then full time traffic cops, because a considerable amount of money is invested on people’s lives, and to throw That away for a compensational, marginal profit made from tickets is wasteful of real resources. Plus, not having traffic cops would bring more unity between people and the government.

I am onboard with the petition.

Lol, makes since in the liberal world. Bizzarro ! No instead of creating limits on law abiding citizens. Start arresting those " speeders" and make the punishments strong enough to maybe deter them from returning to their "speeding"ways. Build the wall, stop the speeders . And BTW arrest any body that employs illegals without verifying their status.

you arent abiding the law if you are exceeding the speed limit. We can arrest them, or we can prevent them from happening in the first place, right?

Building a wall decreases illegal immigration, limiting vehicle operating speeds decreases speeding instances, perfect.

My recognition of this very common phenomenon a long while ago, is what made me realize that MOST people use philosophy and reasoning in reverse.

That is, they don't start from a principle, and then deduce a decision or a behavior; they start from what they want, and then cast about for likely sounding philosophical phrase, or political sound bite, and throw it out as though it's a law.

The real irony of the let's-build-a-wall thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that even if it is built to the exact specifications it's biggest advocates desire, it wont do anything whatsoever to fix the actual problem that led to it being proposed.

That is, since the real reason for flat wages and a huge decline in the wealth of the American middle class is NOT illegal immigrants, and never has been, the primary product of building the wall, will be the follow on design and manufacture of a new cover story for the people who are ACTUALLY holding wages down.

Auto standards are constantly changing.
EPA standards, airbags, seat belts, back up cameras, many cars have limiters so they can't accelerate too fast.

"We" do invest in changing auto standards, every year, constantly.


I don't think you know how cars work.



So you've legitimized the argument for building a wall by equating it with another problem.
Good job.

Other than that, I don't believe you're putting much thought into this.

The states already set up "walls" against people driving in the first place.
Must be 16, must take drivers ed, must show birth certificate, ss#.
Must carry insurance, must pass emissions tests, must have seat belts, must wear seat belts, all your lights must work.
You must go through this system, and you're allowed to drive.

There are a lot of restrictions (walls) already erected before a person can actually get behind the wheel in the first place.

You don't see a lot of "sanctuary highways" for people that steal cars, allowing them to drive around freely, giving them licenses, paying for their insurance, giving cars (and licenses) to the babies that just happen to have been born in a car...right?

Building a wall decreases illegal immigration, putting in place a system and demanding adherence to the system which keeps a lot of people from behind the wheel has decreased speeding instances.

Based on your arguments and logic, building the wall is a good idea.
It helps force people to go through the "drivers ed" and "licensing" procedures.

Good job.

Can't wait to see you on the picket line demanding that wall be built.

Commendable concern but the root of the problem isn't speed or drunk driving.
I notice people driving while I am waiting at a light or stop sign.
People don't pay attention to the task at hand. They're distracted.
Next time you are waiting for a light or just sitting near traffic, LOOK at the drivers and count (out loud) the ones that are distracted.
You'll be amazed.

Another thing, cities and town have speed limit ordinances within city limits. Usually 25 mph unless otherwise posted.
Front air bags deploy at 8 to 14 mph or higher.
ABS doesn't "kick-in" at speeds below 12-15 mph.
Seat belts are effective at any speed for restraint but the forces of impact can still kill you at really high speeds. Then there are the projectiles in your car that impact you when forward motion is abruptly stopped. You didn't die in the crash, you died when that can of peas in your bag of groceries impacted your neck at high speed.
If you increase the impact speed by a factor of 2, you increase the impact force by a factor of 4. For a head-on collision with another moving object, impact pressures are multiplied even more. Its basic physics.

The thing is, we are a mobile culture. We take risks so we can have our mobility. Cars are much safer than they used to be. Its not the cars or really the speed, its how well we operate them that causes accidents.
I've avoided 'accidents' that would have been caused by 'the other guy' but just paying attention to what is going on around me.

My point is punish the speeders enough to deter them from speeding again. As for the illegals make it's ow to them if they come back it will be prison time. The wall shouldn't even be in your senario. The wall isn't the speed limit it's the laws for operating a motor vehicle. The wall should have been built after the first illegal crossing. Many years ago.

yes. the wall is there because it represents an INVESTMENT in trying to prevent an illegal action. Just like preventing the manufacture of cars that are able to go over the speed limit.

?

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/810625

The overwhelming amount of fatal car accidents already happen under 80 mile per hour

The largest group of fatalities being in the 55 mph range. In the urban areas the 40 mph range.

So what is governing cars to a maximum speed of 80 mph going to achieve?

How many of the accidents you listed were done at a speed of 80 mph or more?

Im not exactly sure, do you know how many illegals in our prisons crossed at the border versus overstayed?



66 percent of those who became illegals in 2014 were overstays, not border crossers ... but we still want to build that wall....


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216

Oh, I see. bait people with one subject while you have a different agenda at the ready all along.

Isn't there rules about .. baiting?

So, you strung along the people who did answer on the car speed bait... ( I count 8 ) wow... not a very nice thing to do to people.. not nice at all.

no, not bait, very direct.

just like talking about chicago violence to introduce chicago and violence with BLACK people.


Im wondering if people really stand by the train of thought that we should invest to prevent the ability for people to break the law who may end up causing death. Driving was the analogy to see if that train of thought was a constant or hypocritical. I said so in my second post.