The NMA is probably the only organization which consistently advocates for better driver training.

I don’t think that we can continue this discussion as you seem to be ascribing broad brush positions to me, which I have not espoused. Particularly your assumptions regarding my political views, my profession, and my views on what constitutes tyranny. (You got them all wrong, BTW.)

It’s not just for people who have been convicted - it’s now proposed to be a guilty-until-proved-innocent “feature” of all cars:

How about the wackos who oppose nuclear power despite its obvious carbon and public safety benefits over any alternative? Or the people who have continued to wear masks outside? Or decry the entire enterprise of scientific inquiry with cries of moral relativism, that science is "just another belief system?"

Just read the fact sheet: https://ww2.motorists.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/dui-fact-sheet.pdf

As a leftist, don’t think we have just as many science deniers. Ours are “spiritual,” New Age, or moral relativism junkies.

MADD lost all credibility when they stood with Uber and Lyft to support Prop 22 in California.

The NMA is very much against distracted driving and is the only organization I can think of which wants to place MORE responsibility on the driver and driver training for prevention of crashes. Draconian actions like cell phone bands and speed humps don’t work and fail to place the blame for crashes where it belongs:…

Go to the website and read the actual positions. The NMA is for reasonable traffic laws that do not unfairly punish drivers for traveling safely. Among other things, the NMA opposes draconian and corrupt red light cameras which serve to enrich Redflex, and civil asset forfeiture, which violates your 4th Amendment…

I think you’re deliberately missing the point. There are so many confounding factors when it comes to crash severity that it is not accurate to simply point to F=ma and say, “see, speed is dangerous!” (Plus, a is delta v over t, not v itself, so even if you’re talking pure physics you still need to account for delta v …

Don’t crash.

If your hypothesis were true, the fastest roads would be the most dangerous, and so would the fastest mode (commercial air travel). Clearly there are mitigating factors.

It’s all bullshit since it’s just up to the officer and doesn’t imply a forensic analysis of the crash.

Come to the West. 85 is like standing still.

So make driving tests harder. It's not like people are allowed to drive without a license.

You are incorrect. "Speed-related" is at the discretion of the officer or the coroner and does not involve a formal investigation or definition.

Speeding is neither bad nor inherently dangerous. Limits are set artificially low. And like the OP said, all crashes are speed related because if nobody was moving there wouldn't have been a crash.

That'd be great if our speed limits were actual limits rather than set statutorily. If the limit on an open freeway were 120 or so, then yes, I could see the argument for limiters.

Which would be fine if they also had a "return to right lane" feature after passing. I see so many Tesla's cruising in the passing lane without a care in the world or a driver's hand on the wheel.

Those devices are illegal in California because we believe in privacy laws.