Any motoring organisation that proposed speed humps should be ignored, as they clearly aren't competent. Proper road design slows drivers without needing to impede emergency services or add wear to vehicles. Adding bike lanes or planter boxes to the road center brings the desired behavior (slows drivers) with literally no negatives.

Right, why would commercial media want to underhandedly support the candidate who generates constant outrage and hate porn, which directly increases their bottom line. Why would they lie

Yeah when you use literal slaves instead of union labour, costs are down. I'm not willing to trade my humanity to save a few dollars and a debatable improvement to the climate disaster (I doubt the manufacture and extraction practices in China are anything approaching clean).

IMO this is a rare case of Washington doing the right thing.

Edit For the benefit of anyone at risk of being fooled by authoritarian propaganda, there is a plethora of evidence of slave labour used throughout the Chinese economy, from uyghur muslims to foxcons indentured workers. It's prevelent through the supply chain for many, many industries, and that alone warrants discentives on imports until such time as these practices end.

To suggest that individual businesses, who are built within this system, may be somehow operating outside of it is clearly absurd, however it's simply not possible for a layman to unpack and debate the supply chains and business practices hidden behind the bamboo curtain.

The discourse below is an example of how bad faith arguments can create doubt, by employing strawman arguments and ignoring actual points raised to create the appearance of being reasonable by hiding behind "citation needed" type arguments. If you read through it, you'll see that the propagandist doesn't once engage in anything I've actually said - this is intentional, they do not want to be in a position where any claim they make can be contested, nor do they actually want to directly contest any claim I've made. Rather they only want to sow doubt in what I'm saying, which takes considerably more effort to discredit than any actual claim.

Norway having a small military and being easy to bully sounds familiar, perhaps the Russians remember how that goes and can explain.

It's claiming that pushing men out of civilized communities, spaces and conversations ultimately leads to them embracing more accepting alt-right ideologies and movements.

Nothing screams safe like a solid unibody chassis with no crumple zones, a high center of gravity, terrible visibility and an ride height that forces pedestrians under the wheels in an impact. safe

Because by running a red light you endanger other road users because you're acting unpredictability and you disrupt the flow of traffic which ultimately creates congestion (more hazardous plus wastes time and resources).

Atheist is literally "not theist" which would include nothing, none, agnostic (the belief that it's impossible to determine the existence or absence of, in this context, God). It could even be argued that people who believe in God but do not participate in theistic practices (eg lapsed Catholics) are atheists. It does not require or even imply some position against religion.

I am shocked that a market based healthcare system that prioritizes profits manages to lock people into lucrative consumer cycles where they're conditioned to rely on medications or treatments that don't cure them. I am shocked.

Completely unrelated, it's very noticeable how everyone is medicated and has mental health problems since I've moved to the US, weirdly back in Australia where the health system is different it's less common. What are the odds of that...

All of these people responding that they prefer auto so they can eat or otherwise not pay attention in the car are the best (only?) argument for why everyone should drive manual.

Whatever your transmission preference is, if you're not engaged in driving you shouldn't be on the road!

So a less efficient and more complicated land tax? Is there any benefit to this compared to just taxing based on the value?

The two differences you listed improve traffic flow and safety massively!

Driver education is often more strict depending on country (I'm thinking Scandinavian countries and Germany), unsurprisingly this makes a big difference.

Traveling faster is a bit of a moot point. If people drive faster and rate of incidents and road toll are lower, surely that proves that travel speed isn't the problem in the US.

But really, the drink driving culture in America is terrifying. The state of Texas has a similar population to Australia (where I'm from), 9,560 people died on the road in Q1 2022 in texas. Australia had just under 2000 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR! Both places have similar speed limits that are considerably slower than Europe, so I don't think it would be honest to try and say the low speed limits cause deaths. My best guess would be that drink driving is enforced at 0.05 in Australia compared to 0.08 in Texas. On top of this, Texas only enforces if officers have a cause for lawful detainment, which is a high threshold to cross compared to random breath tests common where I'm from.