50,000 U.S. Citizens die every year from car accidents, should we ban cars?
343577
Damn keep your voice down,the Liberals are listening and I need my car.
116271
There's no way that the government can prevent automobile accidents. They almost always occur because of driver error. Whether that error is not paying attention, driving too fast for the conditions, driving drunk, or just not being a very good driver. It's very rare, but accidents can result from mechanical failures or problems with the roadway itself. The government tries to cut down on the number and severity of accidents by enforcing speed limits and seatbelt laws.
556660
are you kidding me? the big deal is it is illegal. drinking and driving kills so many innocent people per year it's mind blowing and it kills the law breaking drunkards behind the wheel too. get a clue.\n\noh ok that was your attempt at a joke...um..not funny
920742
Well any good debate requires that one also know your opponent's opinions, reasoning, and evidence.  So I will give you some opinions for both sides, aside from the ones you already stated.  First I will give some counterarguments for the points you already stated, one is that pollution is not limited to a certain area, so you should avoid saying exactly that, just say a decrease in overall pollution.  I'm not familiar with this area, but public transport can be troublesome for people buying stuff, seeing as how they have to haul their goods and belongings onto public transportation, which could be a potentially ripe place for people to get robbed.  The CBD will be less congested, well I'm betting that what traffic there is small fry compared to Asian cities such as Tokyo or Hong Kong.  Elimination of private cars would be a good thing because it can severely limit the number of casualties related to driving, most commonly drunk driving.  Cars should also be banned because it will help conserve natural resources such as gasoline, as well as reserving more land for real estate development rather than road development.   The elimination of cars on the road will help to expedite any emergency being responded by the authorites, such as medical emergencies, fires, etc.  Now let's take a look at why we shouldn't eliminate private cars, well for one its an inconvenience for people who are already accustomed to their own transportation.  Another is that risk for accidents in public transporation may become riskier, as said before mugging, but also vehicle accidents, a bus that is full of passengers toppling over could be catastrophic.  Private transportation for personal reasons become more inconvenient, such as someone who is about to give birth could only get to a hospital through public transportation rather than a car.  Again, I am not familiar with this area, so some points may not necessarily apply, but hoped that helped.
308876
yes.  think of all the benefits for the hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens like you and i!  lower gas prices (less demand), less cars on the road means quicker commute times and less accidents!  lower car insurance premiums!  less un-insured drivers causing accidents!  drop the un-employment rate! \n\nDont let those liberal politicians play on your emotions!  the benefits out-weigh just leaving them there to continue to suck off the govt system and raise your bills!.
811764
a vehicle is the leading cause of death under age 30.  distractions on the road or in vehicles are probably very deadly statistically.  we need to take these things seriously.  other people's lives are at stake.  if someone wants your business, they will look for it when they need it.  this sort of information can be stored anywhere and is better when stored in a book or list, like the phone book for example.  I'm fine with people putting up signs on their own property.  Just not where someone from the public road might be distracted by while driving.
426504
It's not necessarily a matter of corruption.  California also has a huge population and a large debt.  In the past few years we have suffered many cutbacks in all areas of government.  Cracking down harder on traffic violations has the joint effect of helping to alleviate the fiscal problems as well as getting people to be more careful when they drive.
1071801
I'd say no, leave them alone.  Alot of senior citizens are just trying to hang on to some independence.  And alot of times, it's imperative for them to be able to get around to doctor's appointments and to do their own food shopping and things like that.  We're never going to be able to remove all unsafe drivers from the road.  We all know that young, road-rage filled, inexperienced, drivers cause even more accidents than seniors do.  Should we remove all them as well by making a law saying you have to be 25 years old before you can drive?  Of course not.  That would be ridiculous.  Leave the seniors alone.  If we looked into each and every car on the road, probably most of us shouldn't be driving for one reason or another.  But hey.  We live in a free society (supposedly).  We need to have tolerance for one another, not more laws.
1067102
I believe that any one should be held responsible for any injury they cause\n\nBut no law like that would ever pass\n\nThe Congress right now passes laws and then makes those same laws not apply to them\nHow would you ever get that past them ???
1112439
No, as long as you have people driving at 200+ miles per hour in a 3500 pound (1500 for IRL) machine with the aerodynamics that they run, then no.  No matter what you do, someone can always get killed.  \n\nThey have made things a lot safer (i.e. HANS device and safer barriers) but accidents and crazy stuff happens all the time.
489124
I never even saw a car wreck monday, usually see one a day and an illegal is usually involved. Hey, if you went back to your countries, that would really teach us a lesson. It would!! Do it again please. It hurt so bad it was GREAT!!
1075932
The Statistical Abstract of the US is the first place I look for this stuff.  In 2002, for people age 15-24, there were about 33,000 deaths.  15,000 were accidents, and 11,000 of those were motor vehicle accidents.  5,000 were homicide, 4,000 were suicide, 2,000 were cancer.\n\nThe CDC also keeps detailed mortality information.  I don't have a quick ref for death rates outside the US.
591567
Well, think of the consequences if they did. We'd be down to 49 states. We'd have to change our flag, our maps, our globes. There are tons of memorials that have 50 of a particular item to represent the 50 States. Plus, there's the issue of the Senators. Each state gets 2 Senators, so which two get to stay? Then there are the differences in state laws and all the residents, granted, neither is a heavily populated state, but they'd all have to get new licenses and new tags for their cars and voter registration...it would be a beauracratic nightmare. Don't even go there with North/South Carolina and West Virginia and regular Virginia...
172322
I AGREE with you, people would probably die if they couldn't talk on the phone while driving. VERY unsafe. They should have an automatic device that interfers with cell phone while driving if you use it. \n\nAnd THANK YOU SO MUCH for being nice about my detroit football question others see fit to be idiots, it's nice to know that there are nice intelligent people out there.
539735
No. I would prefer that everyone did do the speed limit instead of speeding and possibly cause accidents.
681056
no way should they ban guns,i love guns,i just think their are iresposible people getting hold of them,i dont think you will ever stop gun deaths in the u.s because it is human nature to kill each other,and also the criminals would be the only one with the guns ,or the police wich is just as bad,people need to be taught the real dangers of guns becouse they are not toys.
75376
Only teenagers.  Heck I would ban city kids from driving until they are 18 anyway