Hitler in the 21st century

No. I'm brushing off comparisons to Nazi Germany on the grounds that they're utterly ludicrous.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Like I said before just tune in to any radio station in Britain and count the slogans: "safety camera", "health and safety", "speed kills", "minimize carbon footprint", et al. Like Goebbels once said 'A lie, repeated often enough, gets to be accepted as the truth'. This is what conditioning and propaganda is all about.Want to see its effects: Look at every other car-related accident that happens. The first reaction of the so-called community is to ask for speed bumps and lower limits to be installed. Note that nobody even bothers to ask the basic questions like "How did the accident happen?", or "what the fuck was a 3-yr old doing out on the street without an adult around?". Ofcourse they all know that "speed kills" and "safety-cameras" -not parents- must ensure their children's safety. And as someone else needs to be blamed -and you're not allowed to blame Jews this decade- all drivers are demonized and will be penalised.All that's missing is posters on walls portraying demonic-looking drivers hiding in the shadows, ready to run over your child. But I'm sure that can't be far off now. Suspension of habeas corpus is yet another result of the same methodology : Create a problem (or seize on an existing one), condition the populace to believe that only one solution exists and then propose and implement that solution. Simple.It works with terrorism just as well as with speeding! Oh stop it! ..you're killing me...please..just stop it! Full trust in our elected representatives, right? They know best, right? You mean just like the Germans fully trusted Adolf when they elected him, right ? We know how that one turned out!
..and you spent a dozen posts telling me to stop silly comparisons with Nazi Germany?! Oh...priceless!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Right, until the next election. When we stop having elections, you might have a case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

but kids even 3 year olds have always played in the street , from well when ever the first streets date from , lowering the speed results in less death and , less injury , it gives the driver more time to see and react ...you want a "nazi" style version ... ok break the sped limit once banned 5 years , break it twice banned for live , no cop out crime of dangerous driveing .. but murder or attempted ... you knew you where speeding .. in a machine that will kill at those speeds ..ban all non resident cars from housing areas between 7 am and 7 pm ..make all cars have speed regulators to the max speed limit ,oh and my fav anti speed measure .. remove all drive saftey features , {and put a large spike in the middle of the streering wheel aimed at the drivers heart..no reallty not a joke } ..nothing like fear to concentrate the mind on carfull driving .you are assuming that drivers have the RIGHT to use the road and where it runs as they wish , BUT the residents , walker, cyclists , children playing also have rights , sometimes the blance swings in favour of one to the loss of the other .. would you not complain if 18 wheeler trucks started using your road as a cut through ? ..or it became a rat run to cross town ... cars do not own the roads .. they just act like they do ...btw speed cameras only enforce the law , you only get a fine when you BREAK the law .... or do you yearn for the human touch of a police office stopping you ?? maybe he could check for drink and drug use at the same time ??

Yes, and 100 years ago there weren't any cars on the street so you didn't have much to worry about your 3-yr old playing outside. Now, there are 1-ton masses of metal going up and down the street and your 3-yr old will come worse-off in a collision with one of them, so why not be a responsible parent and at least keep an eye out for your child ?! LOL! I see you drank the kool-aid too! Then why road deaths haven't really gone down in the last 10 years despite the huge increase in cameras and other 'traffic-calming' measures and also despite the significant car safety improvements ?Also why do we have evidence which suggests that cameras not only do nothing to prevent accidents, they tend to cause them! You don't need to be Einstein to realise that if you drive with one eye on the speedometer you're more likely to cause an accident. Driving at 30mph on an wide, empty road on a clear day gives you as much time to see and react as driving at 20 mph. Driving at 20mph has the added effect of making you complacent and less focused. Add some speed cameras and you start keeping your eyes on the speedometer instead of on the road. Not very safe driving, IMHO. yes, that's where we're heading! Banning cars is already happening! You got to love the justification the councillor offers: "Banning cars.. will end crippling traffic jams"!!Using the same reasoning, cutting peoples heads off will stop them from getting headaches!To think that people voted such a person in a position of power... again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees. I'm assuming that we all have the same rights and the same responsibilities when using the road . If I cause an accident by driving dangerously or recklessly I'd expect to be punished accordingly. If a pedestrian or cyclist cause an accident by running out in front of my car, I'd expect them to be held just as accountable. Instead I'm automatically receiving the blame just because I happen to drive a car. Why, yes, I do yearn for the presence of police officers! A lot of of them have common sense and use their brains. They will spot dangerous drivers, e.g. drivers high on drink and drugs. Traffic cameras can't spot any kind of dangerous driving as long as it's performed within the speed limit!When I used to work shifts I was stopped twice late at night by police. On both occasions I was about 7-9 miles over the 30mph speed limit. They breathalysed me, checked my details, and let me on my merry way with a warning to "..mind your speed, sir". After all, it was late at night on a clear, wide road and I was posing no risk to anyone. As long as the law enforcers are thinking human beings we have little to fear. It's when they become unthinking, conditioned human beings (or machines) that we should start to worry.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Oh no, I was thinking the same thing. I quit.

so how do you keep to a 70 or 50 or 30 or 20 mph speed limit .. or are you such a good driver that you just know your speed .. gosh may be your a Einetein .. YOU are MENT to have one eye on the speedometer , even if there are no cameras , children or other cars ...one of the given reasons for the lack of fall in road deaths is drivers have lost touch with the outside world beyond the car .. with airconc , phones, cd music , softride suspension , shaped heated seats the drive is give a nice safe feeling .. that is what makes them complacent ..drives have lost contact with the road , the speed , the danger
and btw deaths HAVE dropped in areas of well layed out traffic control areas .. the problem is mad drives just go elsewhere to speed , plus the still incressing number of cars ...car banning does work ..look at many town centres reclaimed from the car , now nice safe places to walk and let the children play ...yes we all have the same rights .. but the person driving the killing machine has masses more responcability .. they are the killers ....and all the evidence shows they speed , the drive with out paying attention to other road users , and the rest of the world ..oh and they cause deaths of the bystander .. so hows rights are in need of proctection , the bystander or the person in there 1 ton tank in a rush to get home to see a tv show ?? err no it more like remove the part of the equation that causes the headache ..cars can .. and have been banned and replaced and it works , the reason is those jams are caused by one person in each car , too many unnessary car journeys ....no one is saying ban cars from motorways .. just from where other people are trying to live .so you want traffic cops .. ok easy incresse the road tax to cover the cost .. happy now ? .. it would be fare .. rate pays pay for local policing , football fan carry the cost of policing ..this sums it up ... how many clear wide roads do you know ??? most i see are full of parked cars , moving cars trucks buses .. and a clear day in england .. hmmm.. j/k
so with out keeping an eye on the speedometer how do you know you are doing 30 mph ??
and driving at 20mph only make YOU complacent cos YOU think YOU are safer ... being hit by a car at 20mph still hurts and can still kill , its still the same 1 ton of metal death machine , .. IF you realise that you are being complacent and still carry on driving thats a crime .. called driving without due care and attention .. the speed is irrelavant ...
why do speed cameras make you check your speedometer .. is it to avoid a fine or points .. shouldnt it be to make sure you are driving at a safe speed , that you are considering other people and their rights ??if as you claim drivers only look at the speedometer when there are cameras then i demand 1 cameras every 25 metre or road .. i want to fell safe .. i want drivers to be checking their speed all the time .

I've been reading this thread with interest and while I do not agree with your likening of traffic laws (whatever the reasoning behind) with Hitler, I can see your overall point regarding liberties vs. safety (more along the lines of habeas corpus tho).That said, I had a few responses to this latest post. Road safety measures in residential areas are usually for the benefit of pedestrians and your link states that 2005 marked the lowest pedestrian fatality rate in 40 years.The report also goes on to state that the casualty rate, taking into account the amount of cars on the road, has markedly declined, meaning that even as the amount of cars increased, fatalities as a percentage have gone down. The numbers, as you say, have plateaued, but the rate has gone down. I agree with your statements on cameras. I don't think they do much to prevent crime, They do help solve crimes after the fact, which IMHO is somewhat beneficial, but doesn't really help the crime problem. Actual police presence does more to deter crime (including speeding) than cameras and this study definitely shows that.I do have to say though, that the problem is not people keeping one eye on the speedometer (no matter what that guy in the second article says), but actually speeding more because the cameras are not as prominent as a police vehicle parked on the side of the road. Like someone else said, you should be watching your speedometer no matter if the speed limit is 20, 40 or 70mph. By watching the speedometer I mean occasionally glancing down at it like you should do every minute or so and controlling your acceleration pressure. If you have a problem maintaining a relatively constant speed then that is your problem and you probably shouldn't be driving a car.I do find it interesting, tho, that the Register article was about the UK gov't suspending new camera installation. I thought your whole premise rested on the gov't having a secret agenda to take away your freedoms through surveillance. I doubt they would do something like this if they were really trying to accomplish what you say they are trying to. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea that constant surveillance is bad. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in this particular thought. Actually, it doesn't. Velocity, distance, road conditions, brake conditions, tire conditions and expectedness (meaning we are often more aware of the cars around us and will react quicker to a change in them than a kid or an object suddenly coming out of nowhere) all play a role in reaction time.And if the road is empty and clear, why not use cruise control? Or just simply slow down and enjoy the scenery or the music or the conversation (assuming there is someone in the car w/you)? Why are you in such a hurry? I don't think it's your right to speed just because you didn't give yourself sufficient time to get to work (which would normally mean that the road is not free and clear because everyone else is going to work as well) and if you're not going to work and it isn't an emergency, then why the hurry? Do you have evidence for that? While I agree that having police is better than having cameras, I don't see how watching your speed in the presence of a police car is any different than having cameras in the matter of watching speedometers. Unless you are implying that it is OK to speed just a little bit without cameras because the police rarely stop someone going 5 miles over the limit. The speed limit is the LIMIT. Not a suggestion, but a maximum. Your speed should ideally be a little bit below that in order to compensate for minor fluctuations in accelerator pressure. But you are a safe driver and you know that already. I'm not familiar with this particular town, but I agree that is sounds a little excessive, meaning the part about couriers and residents not being allowed in/out either. Then again, I don't know enough about the courier system (time schedules, methods of delivery and how much businesses are affected) to comment on that. Which leaves the residents. I would be kinda peeved if I had an emergency or any other necessary excursion (the article wasn't too clear on exceptions...do you know more?), but I would appreciate the more relaxed and quieter atmosphere. I know that experiments with car-free blocks have gone over very well here in NYC, but we also have a population that is used to walking and a pretty good public transportation system.Important questions would be: How large is the area affected? How do the benefits weigh against the negatives? Are there good alternatives to driving during the 6 hours when the ban is in effect? Just curious.

quote:

---

make all cars have speed regulators to the max speed limit ,

​

again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees.

---

Why not? That wouldn't affect the areas with 30mph limits because the max speed would be determined by highway limits, no?I bet you can't wait for the day when cars are all automated and operating on a grid. /sarcasmI don't really see the problem with speed regulation. Cameras, yes. Regulation, no. Even if it is hyped up for some "appeal to sympathy" reason, I would do the responsible thing and give myself enough time to get where I need to go (barring a real emergency) and just enjoy the ride.I've learned to be a little more patient over my short life so far. Even waiting in line is fine with me because I have learned that I am pretty good company. I can occupy myself with my own thoughts or with music or with writing or reading a bit while I am waiting (and yes, I realize that the last two are not possible in cars) and I can even *gasp!* interact with people in line with me. Unless I have an actual crisis on my hands, it's not worth getting worked up about and if I didn't manage my time well, then I have no one to blame but myself. Yes, but the one driving a car has a 2 ton weapon in their control. And they usually are if they acted recklessly. Not necessarily true. If it was really an accident (i.e . you weren't speeding, weren't drunk, weren't talking on the phone, weren't fishing out that CD that dropped between the seats, weren't eating, weren't applying mascara or reading while driving, etc) then it may go in your favor. If you were doing any of those things you should own up to it (most people do not, though).I was hit by a car while crossing a 4 lane road (I was actually just trying to cross the eastbound 2 lanes after crossing the westbound lanes) when I was 11. I looked down the street before I ran across, but a couple on their way to a dinner event had taken a right turn and I was crossing pretty near to the turn. They were going at a normal speed for turning and tried to brake, but clipped my foot and I went flying and I broke my left foot and sprained both of my wrists (landing). It was a complete accident. I didn't see them approaching the turn and they didn't see me as it was just after dark. They didn't get punished just because they were driving the car because both of our testimonies and the testimony of my friend was taken into account (of course, I was still grounded for about 2 months because I was supposed to be at a community center dance, but I skipped out and went across the street to the arcade with a friend instead). The person driving the car does have more responsibility because they are the ones driving what amounts to a weapon.Driving is not a fundamental right and it comes with many responsibilities. Absolutely agreed. Except that they can document erratic driving or a hit-and-run for an investigation. Other than that I think they are pretty useless. Right, except for that car that comes out of nowhere or that stray person that misjudges the distance and tries to dart across the road or that big ass deer that runs into the road or that stranded driver that opens the car door at just the wrong time or any one of several unanticipated accidents waiting to happen all.Why the need to go 7-9mph over the limit? Is that extra 5-10 minutes worth it? I'm not saying that there are things that are not out of your control, but what's the hurry? I agree that rational and/or sympathetic police officers are better at assesing the particulars of the situation than a camera, but I ask again - barring an emergency, why the need to go just a few mph over the limit? It only buys you a couple of minutes in the long run.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

FYI: I've worked in motor insurance, and my other half works in personal injury claims...I can tell you that pedestrians and cyclists are rarely held accountable in the same way a motor vehicle driver is. Legend is right in this - the driver of a vehicle is almost always held partially liable and can be sued (though it is rare for the police to prosecute if the pedestrian was being an idiot).The reasoning is that if a driver sees a pedestrian behaving like a reckless idiot, they should take that into consideration. As a general principle it is sound, but like all general principles, those people who find themselves having a specific ruling on it find it unfair.Example: A taxi driver was driving late at night when a drunk pedestrian ran into the road. The drunk pedestrian was not held accountable for 'drink-walking' - the taxi driver was held partially liable since he should have been aware of the hazard of drunk pedestrians and adjusted his driving appropriately. It is not fair because he may well have done that, but the fact that he hit the pedestrian is taken as evidence that he didn't adjust sufficiently. It seems fine as a general principle, but we cannot expect drivers to be perfect anymore than we can expect pedestrians to be.Incidentally, the pedestrian sued the taxi driver but the taxi driver was unable to sue the pedestrian.I consider it unfair because drivers are not given the level of training required to drive within the strict guidelines civil courts expect them to abide by. Ce'st la vie.

When we stop having elections it will be too late. I'll probably be in some concentration camp for putting cardboard in the black bin or something.That's why I'm making my case now, while I still can!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

So you're advocating keeping an eye on the speedometer instead of the road?! And I thought you were all for safe driving! Guess what else gives drivers an artifical nice safe feeling that causes them to lose touch with the outside world ?
Going ........reeeeaaaaallyyyyy......slooooooooooowwwwwwwlyyyyy! well, I suppose it works if neither you, noone in your family, nor anyone else you depend on to get something done, ever have to drive through or around town! according to this councillor's reasoning that would be the head. Just like the cause of traffic jams are...cars! So you'd ban cars from cities, towns, villages and hamlets and only allow them on the motorways...You haven't thought this one through, have you ? yes, damn those drivers and their cars, damn them all to hell! I don't know why we even bother with speed cameras and not just throw the lot of them in jail and get it over with? Maybe we can force them to wear special identification, say a hubcap round the neck, so that the general public can spot the evil criminals and stay clear of them. Even better we could put them to do some forced labour -say in a razor wire fenced camp surrounded by guard towers- so that they can give something back to society before they collapse and die or the guards shoot them for sport over a glass of sherry. What do you think ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I already told you I'll be in the concentration camp before you will. When I stop posting here, be afraid. I also warned you about crying "Wolf!" If you cry "Wolf!" every time you see an ant, people won't believe you when/if the real wolf comes.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Why are you comparing to 1965? If you look at the last ten years you'll see the numbers have only been slightly falling each year. Even though 2005 was the lowest figure yet it's still only a marginal reduction from the year before and the year before that.If the low speed limits and cameras are as effective as their proponents say they are then we'd expect to see the same sharp decline in the last ten years (since these measure were proliferated) as the decades before, if not sharper. Instead, we see a decrease in the rate of pedestrian death decline. Which suggests that these measures just don't work! The report accounts for the increase in car numbers but fails to account for the huge improvements in car safety features. Nowadays, even the cheapest cars come with ABS/EBD, 4 airbags, et al. These days, it's a lot more difficult for people to die in their cars than it was 10-20 years ago.So, the rate of decline hasn't gone down as steeply as it has been in the previous decades. The theory of 'lower speed limits = fewer deaths' predicts that an increase in low speed limits, traffic cameras, et al, would cause a proportional reduction in the rate of casualties. The last ten years saw a massive increase in those speed-reducing measures but no corresponding decrease in casualty rate, on the contrary we see a slow-down of the decline rate. The fact that there even is an overall decline can more demonstrably be attributed to the car-safety improvements than any speed-lowering measures. Not even that! The majority of reckless and dangerous drivers are driving either stolen or un-registered and uninsured vehicles. The cameras have absolutely no effect on the criminals, they just help to victimise and fleece the innocent Joe Bloggs who did bother to register, tax and insure his vehicle. You should only be watching your speedometer if you think you might be exceeding the speed limit. If the speed limit imposes an artificial speed that bears no relation to the road conditions then you, the driver, have no means of gauging if you're within the speed limit or not. You know you're driving slowly but is is slow enough? As a consequence you have to keep looking at the speedometer constantly, to verify that your slowness is as slow as it should be. Which is just not safe driving. Fascists generally like to give a semblance of lawfulness to their actions. Even Hitler had to call the occasional referendum just to be seen to have the popular approval. Our government needs to be seen as listening to other people's opinions every now and then, maybe even as considering alternatives to the pre-determined path . It's all make-belief and lip-gloss, they'll do what they want in the end. Your little experiment is as much about stopping distances as it is about reaction time. If someone jumps within my stopping distance I'll be unable to miss him regardless of my speed. I can't anticipate (nor be expected to) if someone will jump out in front of my car or not which is why I shouldn't be expected to minimize my stopping distance just in case. My reactions remain the same as long as I don't drive at a ridiculously high or low speed for the conditions. If anything, my reactions become duller at artificially low speeds Only my personal experience and that of hundreds of others I've talked to. I don't know if there are any independent studies on this, after all it's a common-sensical thing to do, but I'll have a look and if I find any I'll be happy to share. I, personally, find that when forced to drive at a speed that's much too slow for the conditions I get lulled into an artificial sense of security (I mean what can happen, I'm going so slow) and become less aware of my environment. I also find that I need to be checking the speedometer every 5 seconds to verify that I haven't drifted a couple of miles over. You can easily sense when you're doing 40 instead of 30, but it's not easy to tell if you're at 23 instead of 20 without looking at the speedo.It's late and I have to go. I'll address the rest of your points tomorrow.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Well, I wasn't comparing 2005 to 1965. Where in "lowest in 40 years" do you get that I was directly comparing just two years? That phrase also suggests that it was lower than last year and the year before that and so on.I would attribute the plateau effect to a variety of safety measures (including those installed in cars which you elaborated on) which helped the steady decline over the last 40 years. I don't have any correlating data for each year, but I would hazard a guess that everytime a major innovation in car or traffic safety came out that the rates declined. These would include: school crossing signs, more traffic lights, guardrails/hazard strips, speed bumps/strips, lower speed limits on highways, in residential areas and in school zones, crosswalks and crossing lights, more public transport, drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws etc.Many of these ideas probably appeared in groups along with car safety features around the same time and had a more dramatic effect than the smaller step by step changes you seem to be describing. We've hit a plateau in technology and new laws over the last ten years, mostly tinkering with already existing technology and tightening/adjusting laws and we see that effect on the numbers. How effective do they say they are? Your initial example showed the townspeople only talking about saving a couple of lives. See above. A plateau. Do you expect every single safety measure to save thousands of lives. Or else they're worthless? Correct. But you cannot attribute the numbers solely to airbags and brakes. And why are you not complaining about the gov't forcing these safety standards in new cars? I mean, it costs you a lot of money as the consumer. Or how about requiring car seats? Those can get pretty expensive, too. Right, and the UK government is looking into the effectiveness of cameras because it has been shown that they don't seem to be doing the job they're supposed to. But what about the lower speed limits? {I have to admit that I am not an advocate of artficially low speed limits on highways, but I am an advocate of low speed limits in heavily residential areas and school zones and those thoroughfares that have alot of traffic lights and/or incoming traffic from side roads so when I say "lower speed limits" I mean non-highway limits} Maybe the effect of the other safety measures was offset by the increase in accidents caused by cameras?By the way, I meant to ask you where you were being forced to drive 20mph? Is it a highway? A rural road? A residential area? I don't think it's likely that you are being forced to drive at 20mph on a deserted stretch of arrow-straight road out in cow country, am I wrong? Huh? Any stats to back that up? Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but when I know I am entering a slow speed zone I slow down (or speed up depending on my starting speed) to a bit below the limit to allow for minor fluctuations in speed. The problem is that most people try to hover at the max speed and then they end up going over due to the fluctuations. That is their problem. The limit is the maximum, not a suggestion, and you should learn to compensate for your driving.Oh, and you do have many ways to gauge your speed and one of them is occasionally glancing down at your speedometer. The only reason people would have to have their eyes glued to the speedometer is if they think the limit is the starting point. No, your reaction time is not the same at a higher speed at the same distance. That is not to say you can avoid every accident, but very low speed limits are usually only imposed in residential areas. You know areas with alot of people walking and biking and with lots of connecting side roads. Rural roads and highways usually have much higher limits, but I have a feeling you are not talking about those.On top of reaction times not being the same, the chance of injury and/or fatality goes up as the speed goes up. The article I linked to above mentioned that the chance of a pedestrian being seriously injured or killed at 30mph is 45%, but the chance goes down to 5% at 20mph. Higher speeds mean more damage. Again, the speed limit should not be the base you work from. It is the limit. Try keeping your speed at 17-18 in a 20 so that you don't have to worry so much about going over. It's really not that hard and it'll only cost you a minute or two.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

ok such statements get us nowhere ..and BTW im for safe living , driving is included but is a minor part ....if you are unable to drive attentivly while maintain control of, and hence knowledge , of you cars speed then i would say you are unfit to drive ... tell me why this is wrong ....can you show a study that at 20mph you loss touch with the world ... given that at ANY speed you shouold be devoting the same amount of brain activity to driving .. whats magic about slow speed .. is it just boring going slow ??, or is the blood flow to the brain is changed ??, does you hand eye corrodination improves you approch the speed of light ?? ,are cars badly designed such that the give less feed back below 30mph ?? please detail you reasons ....odd that towns like say Reading that have banned the car from town centre have found a large incresse in the usage of the shops , cafes , cinema , public buildings in that center .. gosh how did all the people travel to and from it ?? why do they say its now a pleasent place to be ??and we are talking about town centers and residentual areas .. if you cant plan a route to avoid a few areas well you are not really trying .. .. or do you assume the right to drive anywhere ??? should not a balance exsist with some areas for people not cars ??What is so important that you must be able to drive at 30 mph with no speed bumps ??? is not one life save worth a few minutes of your time ?? and do not forget the suffering of the injured , all so you are not delayed ...if its so important for you to travel from A to B each day why not just sell the car(just work out how much you will save ) and move to B ..???cars are not a right , cars are not vital ..there are other ways and means .. a car is a privalage and luxuary item ..look at the cars we buy .. soft seats , nice colours , music systems , air con , adjustable everything .. better thatn many homes ...