Slashdot Mirror

That's not what the rule of law is about.

Wrong. In some states, the Department Of Motor Vehicles is privatized, and a private company can grant driver's licenses to individuals. Do you think that this means the private companies can revoke peoples' licenses for any arbitrary reason? Of course not. The people of the state expect that there are strictly followed rules that govern how a license can be revoked, and the private companies that grant licenses are required to follow these rule.

The situation with internet registrars is similar. We expect that there are strictly followed rules that govern how a domain name registration can be revoked, and the registrars should be required to follow these rule. The registrars shouldn't be sovereign masters enforcing their arbitrary will on the slice of the internet that they control. They were granted the right to sell registrations as a service to the community.

Surely Governor Ducey is not going to be a hypocrite, particularly when lives are at stake: "Arizona must take action now!"

Interesting, thank you. Here's more information.

The technology for mapping subsurface voids has been around for decades, at least the 1960s, the most common method is Direct Current / Resistivity Surveying. An electric current is passed though the ground between four electrodes and the apparent resistivity (in Ohms/meter) of the subsurface is measured & mapped. Voids, filled water or clay or even empty space, have a completely different resistivity compared to the surrounding rock.

Modern survey instruments are automated, they use dozens of computer controlled electrodes (2 current and 2 voltage electrodes are active at any one time). On open ground, a survey covering an area football field could be carried out in a few days. Geophysicists were using Resistivity Surveying to map the sinkhole in Seffner, Florida.

However, I don't know if Florida state law quires a subsurface ground survey before homes are built, I wouldn't be surprised if lobbyists managed to keep such a law off the books (like the insurance lobbyists). Also, the home involved in this case might have been built before automated surveying became available in the 1990s, before then it was slower, more expensive, not widely used.

Engineers Conducing a Resistivity Survey"

2-DAND 3-D RESISTIVITY FOR LOCATING VOIDS BENEATH HIGHWAYS THREE CASE STUDIES"

I saw something about this a while back also. Arizona has used it -
"During the 1990s, the city resurfaced more than 200 miles of streets with 450,000 tons of rubberized asphalt, which used about 1.1 million old tires. The city reported that rubberized asphalt place on Dobbins Road in 1989 has performed without maintenance for 14 years and has an estimated life span of up to 18 years"

http://www.azdot.gov/quietroads/what_is_rubberized_asphalt.asp

There are far too many references to list them all, but start with the Arizona DOT, then try here. From there, google driving speed limit safe.

The BC Ministry of Transportation has a good report in pdf form here.

FYI, AZ DOT does have a policy in place to try and prevent what your saying. Although some of their actions, such as placing a cameras at a site with newly lowered speed limits, at the transition...
In general AZ does seam to have more reasonable speed limits than other places I have been, still too many drivers do not react well to the cameras (excessive slowing down.) It is surprising considering for the most part AZ doesn't go after people who ignore the citations.

"Wow... A full page post describing yourself as a complete asshole. I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a thing on /. before."

You must be new here. Wait, you're an AC. Nevermind.

"I've been to AZ a number of times, having to drive from Tucson airport to Ft. Huachuca on business."

The I-10 and I-19 are not the loop 101. I don't hang in the left lane on the I-10 unless I'm keeping up. And there is less speed differential there than on the 101. Come to Phoenix some time and get a taste of rush-hour traffic. Almost as bad as the 128, and I can drive the 128 with the best of them.

"Unlike you, most people are not assholes that feel they need to regulate the speed of other motorists."

You, like many, just don't get it. I don't much care how fast other people drive, really. I just want to be in the lane where the speed is consistent, and I don't get bothered by people looking to be one car-length ahead of whoever is in front of them. The left lane works for that. Remember, no matter what lane I'm in, someone wants to be ahead of me. It doesn't matter. No, it really doesn't.

"Remaining in the left lane on a highway actually makes the highway more dangerous by forcing people to pass you in the slower moving right lane. That is why your behavior is illegal."

From AZDOT's web pages: "Police agencies necessarily rely on reasonable and well recognized speed laws to control the unreasonable violator whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic."

The question is, then is my driving the speed limit in the right-hand lane 'unreasonable'? Arizona has this to say about 'unreasonable' speed.

In Arizona, it is not illegal to stay in the left-hand lane on highways marked with three lanes or more. See item #3. The Pima 101 is three or more lanes all the length I drive it each day. Yet, there is this language: "a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing". Again, is driving the limit to be considered 'less than the normal speed'? Interesting.

Then the minimum speed limits law is no less vague about 'reasonable'.

Airzona 'racing' law states "2. "Racing" means the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to outgain or outdistance another vehicle or prevent another vehicle from passing." I'm not sure about this, but by that definition MOST other drivers are guilty of this at some point every damned day. No, I'm not *trying* to prevent another vehicle from passing me. If I don't change lanes, they have other lanes to use, unless the lanes are full, in which case there is just no safe way to pass at that time. This happens when there is someone driving in the left-hand lane doing 75 in a 65 also. It is not so simple as you think.

The question is, is the speed limit the 'normal speed of traffic'? In my experience, I am in fact traveling faster than 85% of the traffic on the road. I doubt the speeders actually constitute 5% of the traffic. I'll be counting the next few days to see how many vehicles I pass vs how many pass me. I might have to try the center lane to see if it makes a diffence. Mind you, the center lane exposes me to passers on *both* sides. If I die in an accident, you are to blame, right?

And in Arizona it is in fact not illegal to pass on the right with a few exceptions.

If she's a resident of AZ and she drives then she should get an AZ DL. It's not hard to do, and not expensive ($25 max).

If she doesn't want to do that, she can get can get an ID card for only $12 that also satisfies the requirements of SB1070.

Here's fee info from the AZ DMV site, look at FAQs 4 and 5.

"Yeah, because I couldn't just, oh, show them my drivers license. Because it's so unusual for police to ask for some identification during an investigation" I guess you missed the part where a drivers license is not proof of citizenship?

And I guess you are too stupid to actually JFGI that in Arizona, a drivers license is proof of legal residence, since they require proof of citizenship or legal residency in order to issue a license - same for most other states as well. Stop repeating a lie, it does not make it any more true.

In fact, when first getting a drivers license (in Texas so your state may be different,) we are required to present a Birth Certificate.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/identificationrequirements.htm

Looks like Arizona allows a lot more, though.
http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

... and use lighter tar on the streets white instead of the pitch black crap

The department of transportation started coating the freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area with Rubberized Asphalt a few years back. At first I was like, "brilliant, dudes, brilliant", as the rubberized freeways are much blacker than they were before, and I assumed that this would increase the urban heat island effect.

Then I read about a group who actually had some numbers. They had an infrared satellite picture of the Valley of the Sun pre- and post-rubberization. In the before photo, you could clearly see where the freeways ran, as they were glowing bright orange. But in the after photo, the freeways were all black. The rubberized asphalt does not conduct heat very well, and while it does get hotter during the day (140+ deg. F, iirc), it cools down much quicker at night.

Rubberized asphalt is only good for freeways, where there won't be any pedestrians...

And if you believe everything Microsoft tells you, I've got this bridge for sale in Arizona...

Really? Which one?

(Score -1, Wiseass)

For starters, without numbers I don't believe you.

A 1995 FHA study found that commercial trucking taxes cover up to 40% of the costs to design, build, repair, and maintain the roads on which they travel. It turned out to be about 15-percent of Michigan's road budget that year (position paper here). Michigan found that even after raising the fees and taxes on commercial trucks in 1997, there was still a gap between what commercial trucks were paying and the costs they were causing.

A 1994 report for the state of New York showed that all the money taken in for road and fuel taxes still left them $2B short to cover their costs.

Another study says that one tractor-trailer damages the road in an amount equivalent to 2000-3000 automobiles (the American Truckers Association believes it is only equivalent to 800-1000 automobiles). I do not believe that commercial trucks are paying anywhere near 800-3000 times what automobiles are paying in taxes. There are arguments about how the tax burden should be shared, but some numbers for South Carolina I saw suggested that commercial truck fees and taxes are up to about 10 times that collected from non-commercial fees and taxes.

In California the state and federal taxes and fees only cover two-thirds of the transportation budget. To make up the rest Californians have a local sales tax (on all sales, not just fuel) that goes for transportation.

Arizona has a voter-approved half-cent tax to cover their transportation costs. If you are a real numbers geek, you can sift through their transportation fiscal report and see that their transportation budget is heavily subsidized.

A different take on the issue is by these guys (or at least the people they quote) that talks about the tie between heavy suburban sprawl and the heavy automobile/truck subsidization.

I can go on and on and on like this, but hey, I do have to get some work done today. :)