Slashdot Mirror

Note that I didn't make a judgment on whether this is a good idea; I just stated that it would tax the use of hybrid/electric vehicles in the same way that gas taxes currently tax the use of gas vehicles.

From my point of view, funding the highways is a separate issue from promoting the use of hybrid or electric vehicles. These vehicles don't fly and they don't hover above the surface of roads, so they still cause wear and they still can contribute to congestion on highways. (In other words, roads still need to be maintained and new roads constructed in areas with increasing traffic.)

You can find out how highways are funded in the US: See more.

True, but ABS was designed to allow better control, not shorter stopping distance.

On anything other than smooth dry pavement, ABS can lengthen stopping distance by up to 22%.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf

And the requirement for ABS use in Trucks is still being finalized:
http://bulktransporter.com/management/tank-truck/highway-traffic-safety-brake-systems-0310/

Assuming any comparable braking systems in both cars and trucks, the point I'm trying to make is that "Lord Byron Eee PC"'s expounding of mathematical formula about weight and mass totally ignores the dynamics involved.

I disagree that no protection is the best protection. Plenty of people make simple typing errors all the time when they go looking for a website. Bank0fAmerica (it's a zero; could you tell?) looks an awful lot like BankOfAmerica. As phishing attacks get more and more sophisticated, eliminating any kind of protection makes less and less sense; even smart people can get taken in by an expertly-executed phishing attack that uses a URL that very closely mimics the correct URL and a website that looks nearly identical to the actual website.

Regarding your analogy with motorcycles, statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggest that motorcyclists might actually drive less safely than people in air-bagged cars. In a fatal collision, when compared to passenger vehicles involved in such collisions, motorcyclists were found to be:

(1) More likely to have been speeding.
(2) More likely to have had their license suspended.
(3) More likely to have been driving with a suspended license.
(4) More likely to have been legally intoxicated.
(5) More likely to have a previous DUI on their record.

Please note: The report does not suggest that these behaviors are prevalent among motorcyclists, and it is not in any way my intention to suggest that they are. Most motorcyclists that I have seen on the road drive in a very safe manner. I am just summarizing the statistics from the NHTSA report.

Source: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810990.pdf

Traffic fatalities rates have actually been steadily going down in the recent years and are lowest they ever were. I think this is mostly due to better cars (for example, stability control reduces accidents by about 30%, we have better tires, fewer old cars on the road that can't make a good evasive maneuver).

Going back to the mid-90's increasing numbers of cars and trucks have have some sort of "black box" tech. Why not your phone?

http://www.crashforensics.com/automobiledatarecorders.cfm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/Problems/studies/record/chidester.htm

You are also allowed to do whatever you want with an Odometer in your own vehicle. Just don't go and claim that the reading is accurate.

Sure about that? I'd argue that section 32703(b) might contradict your assertion. Notice that the next paragraph specifically includes the bit about not operating on the street with intent to defraud, but paragraph (b) contains no such stipulation. It just says "thou shalt not".

There were 43,005 auto accident fatalities in 2002 (source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). So we're talking about 2.2% of these being related to cell phone usage.

Also note that both these stats are not the number of accidents, but the number of fatalities. Looking at the number of accidents, which I think is probably a better measurement anyway, we have an estimated total of 6,316,000 and an estimated 240,000 where cell phones contributed. That gives us a higher percentage but still only 3.8%.

Sorry, but while cell phone usage while driving does contribute, it's nowhere near being the boogie-man everyone makes it out to be. And yeah, I've been rear-ended by someone screwing with their phone.

There is no doubt in my mind that outlawing cell phone usage while driving will save lives. Just not a lot of them.

The Federal Highway Administration is already suffering shortage of funds due to fewer vehicle miles driven. There's been talk of more toll roads, increasing the gas tax, etc.

As I see it, encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs, more time between repairs, and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new "usage fees". This could end up increasing the total cost- even though you're paying less for insurance, you're paying more for gas, tolls, etc.

First off, why do you think 99% are screwed? do you think the small percent rise in stamps is that onerous?

I admit, the 99% number was made up. It's actually "only" 79.219% being screwed. They're being screwed because the government mandates that they subsidize mail delivery costs for the other 21%. 79% of the population is paying more money on behalf of the other 21%. How can are they not being screwed?

and it's not just small towns, it's also distances. How much does it cost to fed-ex a letter ? I just checked, and to gt a letter send from Oregon to New York via fed-ex is over 16 dollars and it will be there in 5 days. Slower and many times more expensive.

I don't believe you. According to the FedEx website it's only $10.22 to ship a 5 pound package from Seattle to New York in 5 days. It's also a guaranteed 5 day delivery time, which the post office isn't going to give you for a regular letter. For reference, the USPS offers 7-day delivery of a 5 pound package for $4.90, calculated here. It's cheaper, but it's being subsidized by the millions of people who have to pay too much for postage.

Besides that, you're not really getting the point. If Fedex doesn't charge noticeably more than the USPS the government would say they were competing with the PS and impose a huge fine against them. The only exception is for "extremely urgent" packages, which is why FedEx's longest standard delivery time is 5 only days, and why they're so popular for shipping things on a tight schedule.

The post office is far more efficient then pretty much every private corporation.

Then it's fucking asinine that we waste money enforcing their monopoly, because they'd just beat out their competitors anyway, right?

And you would be wrong. I've gone on organized bicycle tours and it's quite common to bike on the shoulders of interstates where no other option is available.

So if you read the actual report (located here: http://financecommission.dot.gov/ they specify the real reason they are pushing for the GPS based system is for traffic shaping. With a GPS system they have the ability to create toll roads and fees that are based upon WHEN you are driving on the roads and which roads you are driving on. This allows for the more "efficient" use of the roadways (and a tax system that is much harder for people to organize complaints about). This is the advantage over the fuel based tax system.

Personally I hate this idea. I'm a hardcore liberial and this grates on me for two reasons:

First this offers way to much opportunity to be abused. This is complete big brother stuff and after the policies of the last guy who we just kicked out of office and the new guy who isn't doing enough to stamp out those invasion of freedom policies, this really gives me the willies.

Second this rewards the people who drive big gas guzzlers and hurts people who drive super fuel efficient vehicles. That just seems stupid.

Now arguments for the plan... think electric vehicles. They are looking like they might actually become something feasible for our roadways. Our roads are funded in large part by fuel taxes here the government would be left out in the cold if they don't change the tax code (which of course they'll do).

The second argument for GPS taxing was mentioned eariler and that's for traffic shaping. This seems like a poor way to implement this. The government wants to use our pocketbook to influence our driving habbits but this just seems like a poor way to do it. If they worked more on standardizing real time traffic information over the airwaves so private GPS systems can easily tap into that information, people would do their optimization on their own. The government should make this easy by setting the standard for tracking and sharing with all vehicles with the right electronics. Nobody wants to sit in traffic so as long as the information was available the problem is mostly solved.

Just sharing information on real time traffic would help tremendously, but i'm sure it wouldn't effect rush hour traffic. The question you should ask is would GPS taxing help rush hour traffic also? How much in taxes/tolls would you have to be charged before you would change your driving habits? $1 a mile? $2 a mile? This seems like the GPS tax would either have no effect or be a massively high tax that would actually get people to carpool or get companies to shift their working hours but at the expense of a massive tax burden. Neither one of these options is really a good thing.

The funny thing I found in the report is that they rated the public's acceptance of raising the gas tax as a 2 out of 5, but they failed to have an equal rating for the GPS tax! If they think raising the gas tax is bad, just wait until they try to implement a GPS based driving tax. Can you think of anything else that would light a fire under the butts of all the radicals in the country at the same time???? I can't. Environmentalists, anti government right wingers, anti big brother liberals, libertarians... i mean EVERYONE who's willing to stand up and yell at someone would be on the list against this thing. Talk about a crazy idea. I don't know what these guys are smoking, but this is going nowhere.

d

US DOT 2007 Toll Facilities in the United States http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage/t1part3.htm

21 states, from California to Florida, as well as Puerto Rico have toll roads. That doesn't include toll tunnels and bridges, which is a seperate page at the US DOT website.

Epic. Fail.

There have been some very vivid demonstrations of the impacts of cyber-warfare, such as the attacks on Estonia and Georgia, Chinese and Iranian suppresion of free speech and media, air traffic control penetrations, and demonstrated penetrations of SCADA networks (power grid in particular). In Estonia, gov't services were disrupted, and the local equivalent of 911 was broken. Georgia was not as badly dinged as Estonia, largely because they're less reliant on networked services. (c.f. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12673385 ). Power grid infrastructures (as well as telecom, oil pipelines, etc.) are highly automated in the US, and have been demonstrated to have been attacked (c.f. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ). Having accidentally broken chunks of telecom infrastructure, I know how easy it is to create large-scale disruptions through control networks - even without ill intent. The FAA IG has reported that air traffic has already been disrupted by system breaches (c.f. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html, http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ATC_Web_Report.pdf ).

And this is the stuff that's publicly visible. There is definitely an iceberg effect here - there's a lot more under the surface that isn't readily visible to the public. There's good reason the Pentagon doesn't publish the full extent of attacks (successful and not) perpetrated against the DoD infrastructure - it's not a good idea to let attackers know how much you see (and don't). But the concern is based on real threats, and real attempts - this is not hysterical speculation. The rules of engagement haven't been defined (when is a hack attempt serious enough to merit retaliation? what's a 'cyber-exercise' v. an act of war? how definite does attribution of an attack need to be to become a diplomatic issue?). There are countries that are pushing all these envelopes to gain an edge.

So if this stuff is already going on at a low-rumble level, the threat is demonstrated, and the consequences can be foreseen, wouldn't it be irresponsible not to develop techniques and strategies to ensure this bad stuff doesn't happen?

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

List is in the lower right here.

I did not see Binky, Shakes, or Crusty in the list.

Less than an average day on the road.

Wordwide? Sure.
In the USA? Nope. (Not that such a simplistic comparison means anything, but at least let us talk about honest facts.)
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

"flying is statistically much safer than driving by any metric you care to use (per mile traveled,"

Any metric? Absolutely FALSE! Per passenger-mile:

for those who insist on drinking the aviation industry's safety "kook"-aid:

• Motor Vehicle: 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
• Air Carriers: 1.9 deaths per 100 million aircraft miles

Per passenger-mile, airplanes are 50% MORE fatal ...

Considering that US Highway deaths since 2003 are roughly 200,000 and the casualties in Iraq for US troops are 4311 It would seem that many Americans accept that as okay.

In the Grandparent's synopsis, you fall under:

people opposed to war without regard for body count

Additionally, you were being pedantic by building a straw man of his position, instead of addressing his point of comparative body counts from previous wars showing that the US Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are faring much better in this war then any previous one.

I happen to agree that nobody should have died in Iraq, as we should have never been there in the first place. However as I said before, GP already covered people like me in his post.

Really, 15 cents sounds like small amounts, but so did the original 3% or whatever for taxing gasoline. Now about 1/4 of gasoline cost is tax. How's that working out? Money well spent?

Yes, gasoline taxes are well-spent. In the US, a significant portion of highway funding comes from fuel taxes - so the funding to build and maintain roads is proportional to the use (at the state and federal level.)

$0.00 of the US's $0.184/gal gasoline tax goes to the general fund - $0.0286/gal goes towards mass transit, and $0.001/gal goes towards a fund for leaking underground storage tanks. The rest goes towards the highway account.

Also, it is possible that gas taxes were increased over time in order to decrease taxes on other auto related items (such as tires, oil, vehicle registration.)

When these taxes were first imposed, we did not have the Interstate Highway System - a development of the 1950s. Today, this system connects the continental US. In fact, one might argue that increasing the gas tax had the effect of lowering the total cost of long trips (assuming highways can be used.)

More information

Finding that not all of the evidence presented completely and unambiguously supports a position doesn't necessarily mean the position isn't basically correct.

Finding that the only evidence presented either refutes the case being made or where it appears to offer any support, is couched in caveats, is pretty good reason to be sceptical.

Try looking up Aren Cambre's database of speed-related source material, and reading some of the many studies cited there.

I had a quick look at his site and he seems like a selfish, biased nutjob. He assumes that speed limits are too low, rather than setting out to objectively examine the evidence, wants to be able to drink and drive, thinks driving is a right rather than a privilege, thinks that the only requirement that can be placed on drivers is to protect themselves (i.e. not required to avoid causing harm to others) and so on. Hardly the type to expect unbiased information from. Nevertheless, I've picked out some quotes:

There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much faster or slower than average. The occurrence of a large number of crashes involving turning maneuver partly explains the increased risk for motorists traveling slower than average and confirms the importance of safety programs involving turn lanes, access control, grade separation, and other measures to reduce conflicts resulting from large differences in travel speeds.

When the consequences of crashes are taken into account, the risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed or slower and increases exponentially for motorists traveling much faster. One of the major concerns in all of the studies is the travel speed before the crash. Emerging technology used in mayday, vehicle tracking, and adaptive speed control systems provide the opportunity to accurately and continuously capture travel speed. This technology should be applied in improving our understanding of the relationship between speed, speed variation, and safety.

When a crash occurs, its severity depends on the change in speed of the vehicle at impact. The fatality risk increases with the change in speed to the fourth power. International research indicates the change in injury crashes will be twice the percentage change in speed squared, and fatal crashes will be four times the percentage change in speed. These relationships are based mainly on speed limit and speed changes on high-speed roads. More research is needed to assess their applicability to low-speed urban roads.

In general, changing speed limits on low and moderate speed roads appears to have little or no effect on speed and thus little or no effect on crashes. This suggests that drivers travel at speeds they feel are reasonable and safe for the road and traffic regardless of the posted limit. However, on freeways and other high-speed roads, speed limit increases generally lead to higher speeds and crashes. The change in speed is roughly one-fourth the change in speed limit. Results from international studies suggest that for every 1 mi/h change in speed, injury accidents will change by 5 percent (3 percent for every 1km/h). However there is limited evidence that suggests the net effect of speed limits may be positive on a system wide basis. More research is needed to evaluate the net safety effect of speed limit changes.

Most of the speed related crashes involve speed too fast for conditions. This would suggest that variable speed limits that adjust with traffic and environmental conditions could provide potential benefits.

Synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed limits

The safest speed seems to be the average speed of traffic, which is what sensible speed limits should be at or a bit above. If (a big if, I know) people genera

When it comes to selecting individuals for political appointments, quite often they are done for... well... political reasons. Sometimes it's because of bipartisanship, coalition building, or because someone is really well qualified. Other times it is because they are well networked or engaged in a little quid pro quo. Sure, if it is to the level of Blagojevich they may get caught, and we should discourage the outright sale of governmental positions. On the other hand, I still think as long as he was working within the rules, a total of $2450 in donations to Mark Warner isn't quite to the level where I'd be calling the ethics committee.

It certainly didn't hurt his chances to make $2750 in donations to various Obama supporting groups either, but do I think it was a primary reason he was selected? Not really. I think he got selected because he's well connected and has prior experience in healthcare. With Obama's big push for electronic healthcare records and other cost savings measures, I do agree all the more with wanting some questions to be raised concerning the theft of pharmaceutical records in VA, but depending how the investigation goes, I believe the highest uphill it will get in the org chain is to this guy. More likely though, it'll stay a problem of the agency that oversaw the day to day operations.

As states lower their legal limits to the point where they intersect with non-impaired drinking drivers, especially with a .01 or more margin of error,

A .08 BAC is nowhere near non-impaired. For instance, this DOT page states that "At a BAC of .10, the probability of a fatal or serious-injury crash was estimated to be 6 to 12 times that of a driver with no alcohol."

High speed rail is pretty efficient at moving people when compared to cars or planes even without the solar angle but I'd prioritize work on the existing projects and extend deployment to link the Midwest to the East Coast.

"I set up a logger on my website and asked a big security firm to demo their own automated web assessment tool on my website. I received a report of some hundreds of vulnerabilities. Needles to say not one of them was correct"

What was the name of this big security firm, the name of the web assessment tool and the name of your site. And how does this affect the validity or otherwise of the FAA report?

In FY 2008, hackers took over FAA computers in Alaska, becoming FAA "insiders." By taking advantage of FAA's interconnected networks, hackers later stole FAA's enterprise administrator's password in Oklahoma, installed malicious codes with the stolen password, and compromised FAA's domain controller in its Western Pacific Region. At that point, hackers had the ability to obtain more than 40,000 FAA user IDs, passwords, and other information used to control a portion of the FAA mission-support network

There's a huge advantage cars have in this area. In the US the highway system is paid for entirely by gas taxes

That's false

Roads get way more funding than public transit.

In proportion to the costs paid by the users, not in the USA. 58% of USA highway funding comes directly from tolls, fuel taxes, and vehicle registration fees.

Compare to transit operating costs, of which 33% only come directly from passenger fares. When you include capital outlays as well, only 23% of transit expenses are paid for by passenger fares.

Roads get way more funding than public transit.

In proportion to the costs paid by the users, not in the USA. 58% of USA highway funding comes directly from tolls, fuel taxes, and vehicle registration fees.

Compare to transit operating costs, of which 33% only come directly from passenger fares. When you include capital outlays as well, only 23% of transit expenses are paid for by passenger fares.

Roads get way more funding than public transit.

In proportion to the costs paid by the users, not in the USA. 58% of USA highway funding comes directly from tolls, fuel taxes, and vehicle registration fees.

Compare to transit operating costs, of which 33% only come directly from passenger fares. When you include capital outlays as well, only 23% of transit expenses are paid for by passenger fares.

You're one of those idiots who think bigger means safer and pretend you know physics.

Shut your face up and spare the world your arrogant ignorant nonsense. The facts speak for themselves:
In a rollover accident, Midsize SUVs have almost 4x higher fatality rate than Full-size and midsize cars.
Total fatality rates in full size and midsize cars are lower than SUVs and pickup trucks, the only thing being safer overall are minivans and large vans.

Passenger Vehicle Occupent Fatality Rates by Type and Size of Vehicle: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809979.PDF

It's not a government test, it's a death count.

I was obsessed with the NS Savannah recently because she is such a beautiful ship - I love ships and this cargo ship looks like a yacht. Whilst I am not a fan of the Nuclear Industry in it's current form her reactor appeared to be reasonably well constructed and whilst designed to cruise at 21 knots, she outperformed her design spec by steadily cruising at 24 knots - pretty fast for a cargo ship. Check page 16 of the MARAD documentation (warning - pdf).

There is significant historical information about her operation. Until 9/11 she was part of the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) but her reactor was permanently disabled due to concerns she could be used as quite a convenient weapon of terror. Sadly, her hybrid design condemned her to a short operational life (10 years) and she is now a ghost ship. There are plans to make her a museum ship whilst waiting for her decommissioned reactor to cool down for eventual disassembly, but no one seems interested in the project. Despite that the seafarers Union have been working to maintain the ship by improving her general appearance.

NS Savannah's crew dispute was because the executive officers traditionally got paid more than the engineering crew on board the ship, this dispute, high running costs, low oil costs all contributed to her eventual demise. An interest group (with mailing list) is looking for photos and artefacts whist she was in operation.

lots more photos, her community organisation, glory days, historical landmark program, service history and specifications, floorplan and schematics, current status, passenger lounge, reactor control room, dry docked , and finally a flickr photo stream and a rather excellent photo essay of the NS Savannah. A little bit of history for you to enjoy.

6 months because that is all the cars are allowed to be on the road in the USA before they are destroyed or shipped back overseas if they are imported and not DOT approved. "Proof of export or destruction must be submitted to this office not later than 30 days following the
end of the period for which the vehicle has been approved to be admitted to the United States." http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/RULES/IMPORT/TempInfo.html

Cut the tax money for, let's say, highway maintenance, and let's see how well those cars do.

Given that 58% of highway funding in the USA comes directly from highway use taxes, fees, and tolls, and about 1% comes from other federal sources, the cars will probably do fairly well.
Source

If they really want to spend it on long-haul stuff, they should consider improving freight rail. It's a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly than long-haul trucking, but it's been losing because the government essentially hugely subsidizes the trucking industry by maintaining the highway system, while railroads have to fund maintenance of all their track themselves.

No, the federal government does not hugely subsidize the trucking industry. 58% of of highway funding comes directly from use taxes and tolls. Only 1.1% of highway funding comes from the federal government's non-highway sources. The remaning comes from local and state sources, investment income, and bonds.
Source.

If you won't RTFA, here is a nice website with some pretty pictures:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

Here's the actual plan documents:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

If you read the first PDF, hsrstrategicplan.pdf, go to page 18, under Section 301, 501, 502 you can see that up to 80% of funding may come from the government. The exact amount depends on how closely it matches the goals of the HSR plans and/or benefits other types of rail service.

While nothing excludes provide companies from getting involved, they MUST involve the states and have the project added to that state's Rail Plan. This means the project will have a stronger local component and firmer commitments by everyone involved.

Applications are due August 2009 with a draft national rail plan out in October 09. They plan on at least two phases of projects, with the 2nd phase accepting new project applications starting January 2010.

I live outside of Louisville and would love to be able to get to Indy in an hour or Chicago in 3 hours or less. I would be much more likely to go to out-of-town concerts and events if I didn't have to spend hours behind the wheel. Being able to nap in a train and especially being able to stretch my legs a bit without stopping the car would be idea.

Driving ~6hours to Chicago is not appealing and after getting to the airport early, the 1.5 hour flight turns into the same 3 hours as a train ride.

The other thing is that trains are rarely grounded by fog or storms. I can't count the number of my flights that were delayed by weather.

Here is the corridor map. The rest of the details can be found here.

Here is the corridor map. The rest of the details can be found here.

Link
The per mile death rate is lower, in general, in more urban states than more rural ones. My guess is that with everyone stuck together in traffic, most of the accidents happen with a relatively low closing speed so less people are killed. It's certainly not because New Jersey drivers spend more time paying attention to what's going on around them, at least in my experience.

It's not exactly the same point but it's certainly true that vehicle death totals are down significantly on a per mile basis over the last 40 years, at least in the US. So while there may be a false sense of security brought about by ABS, air bags, and traction control, it doesn't overcome the actual advances in safety.

According to all of the statistics I have seen, injury and fatality rates continue to steadily decrease (latest US statistics). I understand the point the article is trying to make - and in specific cases it is probably true - but on the whole, making vehicles and roads safer does in fact translate into an increase in overall safety in spite of the idiotic driving habits of the general public.

I tend to think that having a more extensive driver training program where drivers are exposed to poor conditions and limits of vehicle handling are a much better idea than purposely making roads and vehicles worse. Maybe even have rigorous enough testing that the incompetent are actually weeded out and not allowed to possess driver's licenses.

We kill 40,000 of ourselves (in round numbers) in traffic accidents *every year*: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx That's approximately 10 times the current US death toll in Iraq. Every year!

I think you meant to say, the US death toll of US Soldiers killed in Iraq.

The 4,000 US death toll figure excludes the number of American contractors killed, the number of allied Iraqi soldiers/translators/government/police men killed, the number of international allies killed (yes, there were some), the number of American soldiers seriously wounded but evacuated across the border before shortly dying, and last but not least the number of actual Iraqi civilians (non-combatants) killed, or permanently disappeared.

After all, when you're citing that number of deaths by car accidents in the US to compare to that 4,000 figure with, you're not just limiting yourself to counting just the people employed by the military who happen to get into car accidents on US soil, nor are you just limiting yourself to counting the number of Swedish people that happen to get killed on US soil as a result of car accidents, you're counting everyone; men, women, children, babies, civilians, non-civilians, foreigners, Iraqis, non-foreigners, etc.

"Is anyone anyone really afraid of terrorists? Crackheads probably kill more people in America than terrorists do."

The reason they're called terrorists, is because they try to cause terror -- unreasoning fear is their goal.

We kill 40,000 of ourselves (in round numbers) in traffic accidents *every year*:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

That's approximately 10 times the current US death toll in Iraq. Every year!

Now, every life is precious, and no one should die needlessly. But it's good to keep terrorism in perspective.

  I was working under the assumption that the GP was indicating that we were suggested to step back into the stone age. That would be the entire population of earth, without modern technology to assist us. Really, I think the farthest back we would go would be to agrarian society, but that would have significant drawbacks.

    Say something cataclysmic happened tonight, and in the morning there was no power grid, no city water, no supply chains for food, fuel, etc. I'll focus on only the United States, because I am more familiar with it, and finding numbers relating to it.

    According to the 2000 US census, just about 226 million people lived in 3,629 population centers that could be considered "Urban". That's just over 79% of the US population.

    Assuming these people had exactly what they started out with before they went to bed, they typically would have 0 to 14 days of food supply on hand, and assuming the use of any water supplies available (i.e., toilet tank water, bottled water, etc), they may have a 3 to 4 day supply of water. Right now, if there is sufficient snow on the ground, some people may be smart and gather all the fresh fallen snow that they can. Virtually no one has any provisions for collecting rain water for drinking or cooking use.

    In up to 11 days, people will begin dying of dehydration. In up to 28 days, mass starvation would take effect. Sometime between day 1 and day 10, people will begin using force to horde supplies from weaker people.

    Some people will realize the futility of remaining in an urban area, and attempt to leave. In a best case scenario, starting with a fully fueled vehicle, and ideal cruising conditions, passenger vehicles can travel 400 miles. That's a best case. In reality, it won't be just one person saying "we have to get out of here", it will be hundreds of thousands. One accident, vehicle running out of fuel, or mechanical failure, and all vehicles behind them will come to a stop.

    The 21% living in "Rural" areas may have a better chance. If (IF) they are lucky, they have a fresh water supply that does not depend on electricity. Most rural homes I've seen are supplied with water from electric pumps. If they are lucky, they have a good on-hand food supply. If they are lucky, they already have a food crop that can be harvested on a regular basis.

    In reality, the numbers dwindle. Less than 1% of the 79% of the urbanites will be lucky enough to get to somewhere survivable, but they won't be alone. Less than 25% of the 21% rural dwellers will have the necessities on hand for continued survival without our modern infrastructures. i.e., how do you plow a field without a tractor (no fuel). How do you trade bare essentials with your neighbors who you can't reach without a car (no fuel).

    But, if the 285 million people in the United States did manage to disperse from the urban centers, to areas that could sustain them temporary for food, water, and shelter, and they managed to have or improvise hand tools to cut down trees, make fire for warmth and cooking, it would be absolutely disastrous for the environment.

    This is an easy game to play. Go into your garage and shut off the main breaker (or pull the main fuse in older homes). Shut off the water and gas mains. Take all the money out of your wallet, and your credit cards, and stick them in an envelope somewhere safe that you won't touch them. Now, survive for 6 months.

    In reality, if we stepped back to the "stone age" tonight, only small pockets of humanity would survive, and they would be the rural dwellers who live in fresh water rivers, have farms, and can live off the land. Everyone else will die.

Allies should not be crashing nuclear reactors into each other by accident.

Drivers should not be crashing containers of flammable liquids into each other by accident. Let's ban cars!

I realize the response was tongue-in-cheek, but automobiles account for some 41000 - 43000 deaths per year in the US. That's not counting any that were cripple, maimed, or otherwise injured for long or short term. Getting rid of the cars gets rid of that problem. We see the reduced traffic from the recession is reducing traffic deaths.

In some areas, cars are the leading cause of death for some age groups. It's rather embarassing that folks in the US can live 2km from the city center and still have, for all practical purposes, no public transportation even during business hours. It's the daily commute and the party traffic where public transport pays off for public health. The former because of the sheer number of km travelled, the latter because about 1/3 of accidents are alcohol-related.

Anyway, that's moot since most drivers don't go around with the windows boarded over, trying to sneak up on other cars, as would be the analogy for the subs.

Generally speaking you have more handling and fuel performance issues with having too *little* air in the tires. 27% of cars, according to the US DOT, have at least one underinflated tire.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa4601.htm

So what's the problem? Well, as you say, you get a harsher ride from an overinflated tire, but you get far many more problems with underinflation, which is probably far more common. Some of those problems include poor braking, slow steering, poor handling/road grip, and worse fuel economy... worse than can be made up by funky new regenerative shocks.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/225/could-we-conserve-gasoline-by-putting-more-air-in-our-tires

I know lots of people made fun of Barack Obama during the Presidential campaign for his plea to check the tire pressures, but the reality is that drivers the world over could save millions of gallons of oil annually by simply keeping tires inflated properly. In cold climates this also means double checking the pressures when the outside temperature drops by 10 degrees.

Better to pump up the tires than not.

Sure; most people love driving. It has become part of the "American way" for some reason.

But how does "liking" something compare to killing tens of thousands of people each year, causing massive destruction of ecosystems, causing other vast climactic changes, draining natural resources, and destroying watersheds (with pavement)?

Is a little enjoyment really worth all that? Can't you go drive bumper cars or play a driving game or something?

Heck, lots of guys enjoy having sex with lots of varied women every day. But something prevents them from grabbing the nearest hottie and having their way with her. I think it has something to do with... social responsibility.

Thank you! The 0.08 BAC limit is nothing but an arbitrary value designed to give people peace of mind. The one thing that would reduce the number of traffic fatalities in the United States is making it harder to get a driver's license, like it is in other countries. As it is (where I live, at least), the test only measure's one's ability to drive a few blocks and perform some inane maneuvers. For example, backing around a corner and parallel parking; it does nothing to address how one will react when faced with an imminent accident. Moreover, the aggressive criminalization of driving while intoxicated completely ignores the fact that there are many other factors which contribute to fatal accidents on a level similar to intoxication. For example speeding. Yet, for whatever reason, a person who is caught speeding or running a red light receives only a hefty ticket (in most cases), while a person whose blood alcohol measures above some arbitrary number will have to spend thousands of dollars on treatment and attorneys fees to avoid going to jail. And I thought I lived in a country where people weren't preemptively punished for what they might do...

From one study ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html )

The principal findings and conclusions from the statistical analyses of accident data are the following:

        * ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.

        * Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.

        * ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.

        * The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.

        * All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.

        * Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.

        * Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.

        * The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.

# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.

# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.

So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same.
Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis

the submitter of the story wants us all to live in urban environments, but alas, this is not the case for most of India.

TFTFY
79 % of the US's population lives in urban environments, versus 27% for India.

BTW, India does have a well developed passenger rail infrastructure - one of the longest and most used in the world.

Let me introduce you to it.

As I have been saying here for years, the Internet is the Post Road of the 21st century. It is both the road to the market and a path for interstate commerce. It is too important to allow private enterprises to decide who is entitled to this road and who is not by virtue of which market can pay the most. It's essential for everybody -- more so since more and more government services are provided through it, including even paying income taxes.

It's high time the federal government told the incumbent providers that "if you won't provide broadband to everybody, we will".

My favorite thing about visiting Hawaiâi?

The interstate highways!