Slashdot Mirror

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt.

The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:

From their FAQ:
"...In the passenger compartment, flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen."

I'd say the real reason is that they don't want a fire to start in the luggage compartment.

The important questions, which get glossed over by things like the above declarative talking point, are "What is the likelihood of an attack within the next N, N+1, N+2... years?" and "What is the expected severity/method of such an attack, should it occur?" and "What is the likelihood that any given person will be affected?"

These are most excellent questions, and illustrate how bad people are at assessing risk. The number of automobile fatalities in the U.S. from 2002-2005 was 172168 (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). The number of fatalities from the 9/11 attack was 2974, which is 58 times fewer people than autos claimed since then. So, I guess that means there's something like a 0.0002586% chance of dying to a terrorist attack. You stand a much better chance of being murdered by your own countrymen (20 times more likely), dying of influenza (27 times more likely), or even dying of AIDS (19 times more likely).

There is no measurable risk dying to a terrorist attack. Worry about catching the flu or your trigger-happy neighbor instead.

The problem with only counting "train" accidents is that this ignores the collateral damage at grade crossings. The Federal Railroad Administration (http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.asp?page=graphs.asp) maintains data; there's this year's chart: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Output.asp?file=2007/cht03.gif. The numbers are an order of magnitude higher.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd encourage to look at hard numbers rather than pulling guesses out of your ass. Take a look here.

What do I see right away? Well your belief that secondary roads are much safer than highways doesn't seem entirely right - for 2005 I see 44.5k deaths on major roads vs 56.5k deaths on smaller roads. A difference sure, but not all that massive.

The split by vehicle type is also rather interesting, deaths in 4/5 door hatchbacks (the "tiny-ass POS" that I happen to drive) amount to a massive 292, vs almost 28 thousand for your "safe" big-ass car, and no - that difference cannot be explained away by total numbers of vehicles on the road. Small cars are more stable, more agile, and often just better designed with regards to safety. At least that's my belief, and I've yet to see stats to counter that.

Data from the DOT:

Motor Vehicle 36,676 1 out of 7,700 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles c,d
Poisoning 15,206 1 out of 18,700
Work Related 5,800 1 out of 49,000 4.3 deaths per 100,000 workers
Large Trucks 5,150 1 out of 55,000 2.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Pedestrian 4,846 1 out of 58,000
Drowning 3,409 1 out of 83,500
Fires 3,312 1 out of 86,000
Motorcycles 3,112 1 out of 91,500 31.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Railroads 931 1 out of 306,000 1.3 deaths per million train miles
Firearms 779 1 out of 366,000
Recreational Boating 714 1 out of 399,000 5.6 deaths per 100,000 registered boats
Bicycles 695 1 out of 410,000
Electric Current 410 1 out of 695,000
Air Carriers 138a 1 out of 2,067,000 1.9 deaths per 100 million aircraft miles
Flood 58 1 out of 4,928,000
Tornado 57 1 out of 5,015,000
Lightning 47 1 out of 6,061,000

http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm

- The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent).

- Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During 1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds 2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps.

- The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in passenger cars.

- At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000 police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000 (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year.

- The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars).

- Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety devices.

A maglev traveling at high speeds (say 250 mph) is much louder than conventional rail at less than 200 mph. At the same speed (above 100 mph) they're both comparable in loudness since aerodynamic effects are the driving sources, but since maglev has higher top speeds, they louder at the highest end.

See here and here for more information. Disclaimer: I wasn't a principal author for either of those documents, but I did contribute, and I did attend the maglev testing documented in the first link.

A maglev traveling at high speeds (say 250 mph) is much louder than conventional rail at less than 200 mph. At the same speed (above 100 mph) they're both comparable in loudness since aerodynamic effects are the driving sources, but since maglev has higher top speeds, they louder at the highest end.

See here and here for more information. Disclaimer: I wasn't a principal author for either of those documents, but I did contribute, and I did attend the maglev testing documented in the first link.

There seems to be a lot of nice statistics here: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx, in case you are curious about the latest trends.

They need to mod you up some more, it's only a 4.

There have been fewer than 3,000 deaths from terrorism on American soil this entire century. Meanwhile, 40,000 Americans die on the highways every single year. I'm far more afraid of the blonde terrorist in the SUV than I am of the Muslim terrorist in a bomb jacket.

Far worse, though, are the corporate terrorists. Osama Bin Laden killed almost 3,000 people, big fucking deal. R.J. Reynolds kills half a million every year from cancer, and that red and white striped clown terrorist Ronald McDonald kills another half million with heart disease.

Bin Laden is a piker. He should not be looked at as any more than a minor nuisance. more people die from tripping over their own clumsy feet!

It's time to retire this bogeyman. 3,000 in 7 years vs 280,000? I say lets put some of that Homeland Security money into a few guardrails!

-mcgrew

as long as you're the one behind the wheel, that's true compared to SOME other cars (here's the actual data: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2006/809979.pdf where you might find some surprises, such as the mid size car being safer than an SUV).

Of course, you're also much more likely to kill the person you hit, but hey, don't let that bother you any, we don't mind. You do what you have to in order to be safe.

Me, I'm going to put a tank gun on my car, and if anyone gets too close, POW!!! Better safe than sorry, right?

Protecting our freedoms? I thought it was about stopping terrorist attacks. I mean, so many people have died in America from Osama Bin Laden's terrorism; there have been almost 3,000 deaths this century!

Of course, since over 40,000 people die every year on the highways, I'd like to see some of that "Homeland Security" money go to guard rails and other safety improvements. I'm far more afraid of the cell-phone weilding blonde than the bomb wielding Muslim!

But wait, that's still chicken feed. Osama should be jealous as hell of a far bigger terrorist - RJ Reynolds, whose poison kills over half a million people yearly! the corporate terrorists are truly deadly!

Even Ronald McDonald kicks Osama's ass when it comes to killing Americans. Heart Disease also kills over half a million Americans every year.

Hell, even Bush himself is deadlier to Americans than Osama, since well over 3,000 of the soldiers he sent to Iraq (to destabilize the region and drive gas prices up; he's an oil man. Gas was $1 here when he took office, now it's over three times as high) have died there.

Al Quaida? Shit, the tornado that tore through my home town in 2006 miraculously didn't kill or even seriously injure anyone, but look at the destruction of ONE building! The tree behind my apartment looked like a weed someone had stomped on. I saw twisted girders, trailor homes torn in half, five foot diameter trees uprooted, wood splinters imbedded in concrete. If Osama saw what I saw he'd have given up.

So I completely agree with you. That God damned abomination must go! I think the Congress and Senate who passed it and the President who begged for it and signed it should go as well.

-mcgrew

Everyone disgusted by this should send them a note here: https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/email.cfm to tell Ms. Nason that this isn't what we want out of our leadership. You can submit your comments anonomously.

The ban is on speaking to reporters *on the record* not on speaking to reporters. The claim in TFA that reporters won't quote someone who is speaking off the record is disingenuous, at best. Either that or the author has never heard of a couple guys named Woodward and Bernstein. Seymour Hersh wrote an article or two using off the record sources, too. And how often do we see mainstream news articles quoting someone (usual in government) who answered their questions "on condition of anonymity?" That would be what, oh, just about every day?

As others have noted, there's nothing particularly unusual about this. Almost all companies have similar policies. I've never worked at one that didn't. Most of you probably haven't, either.

NHTSA staffers will doubtless continue to talk to reporters just like always, except anonymously. There is actually upside in this: if they all speak on condition of anonymity, it gets harder to figure out who spilled the beans.

Oh, one more thing for all you who are talking about bridges falling down: NHTSA doesn't do bridges; they're responsible for vehicle safety:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuite m.30351f8e7e40c1cbf62a63101891ef9a/

Found the answer to my question. It appears that accident rates actually go down if you've had one drink. Chart is here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/images/figure2-6.gif It doesn't start rising significantly until about .09 or so. That chart, as well as other alcohol stats, are at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/2__overview.htm

Found the answer to my question. It appears that accident rates actually go down if you've had one drink. Chart is here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/images/figure2-6.gif It doesn't start rising significantly until about .09 or so. That chart, as well as other alcohol stats, are at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/2__overview.htm

Please, go do more research on the topic.
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgKy.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-53804
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-17701

Please, go do more research on the topic.
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgKy.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-53804
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-17701

Our vehicles are out to get us. They are plotting against us and are even willing to sacrifice themselves to kill a few of us. Calling the sentient automobile threat overblown is burying one's head in the sand.

In the US alone, a week will on average contain:

Sentient Vehicle Attacks: 115,000
Dead Bodies: 788
Critically Injured: Lots

And for a whole month:
Sentient Vehicle Attacks: 500,000
Dead Bodies: 3400
Critically Injured: Lots * 4.3

These killings have been going on for years and are getting worse. The stated objective of the Sentient Vehicles is the total subjugation of the human race. It's a holy war, but we didn't start it. These are not the actions of a simple transportation machine. These are the actions of evil, murdering fucktards who consider mercy a weakness. They don't have any problems murdering women and children.

For the curious, I got my numbers from FARS and some car accident site. Neither one has 2007 data, and even though the charts show steady progression, I used rough estimate numbers that were probably a little bit low 10 years ago, so if anything the threat from these monstrosities is even worse than the picture I've painted.

The "internet is dangerous!!!!" is like "We must give up our liberty because of teh terrorism!!!!" Do the math: less than 3,000 dead in America this century from Muslim terrorists, while there are half a million from heart attacks and another half million from cancer, and forty thousand from auto accidents every single year! I'd say that Homeland Security money would be better spent on a few guard rails, and maybe if we can outlaw smoking something that slows lung cancer we can outlaw something that causes it? Or at least legalize the one that slows it so the cigarette smokers can legally... oh hell, never mind. This is mainstream media, law and government we're talking about. Logic, reason, and sanity should have nothing to do with the debate.

From http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/ firearm_facts.pdf : In 2004, there were 649 fatal accidents and 235 deaths with unknown intent. Maybe you were thinking auto, not firearm accidents.

From http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ : In 2005 there were 43,443 motor vehicle accident fatalities.

Well at lease their knot misusing apostrophe's or homonymns.

More seriously, and actually on-topic, with a liberal dose of commas, I'd like to say it's about fucking time! There is no way to physically harm anyone over the internet, short of selling them drugs or cigarettes or booze or something (and yes, I know cigarettes and booze ARE drugs). Your kid is far more likely to be molested by their coach or Priest*, or harmed by a babysitter than some random stranger, let alone a random stranger from the internet.

The "internet is dangerous!!!!" is like "We must give up our liberty because of teh terrorism!!!!" Do the math: less than 3,000 dead in America this century from Muslim terrorists, while there are half a million from heart attacks and another half million from cancer, and forty thousand from auto accidents every single year! I'd say that Homeland Security money would be better spent on a few guard rails, and maybe if we can outlaw smoking something that slows lung cancer we can outlaw something that causes it? Or at least legalize the one that slows it so the cigarette smokers can legally... oh hell, never mind. This is mainstream media, law and government we're talking about. Logic, reason, and sanity should have nothing to do with the debate.

-mcgrew

*Old joke- A Rabbi, a Priest, and a lawyer are on the Titanic when it hits an iceberg. "Save the children!" screams the Rabbi. "Fuck the children!" snarls the lawyer. The Priest exclaims "No time for that!"

• Cancer: 556,902 deaths in 1993 alone thanks to the terrorists at R.J. Reynolds
  
• Heart attacks: 500,000 deaths yearly thanks to the terrorists at McDonald's and Burger King
  
• 36,254 fatal highway crashes in 1994 Thank you, terrorist dumbass drivers
  
• 2974 fatalities from Muslim terrorists this entire century!

First of all, calculating braking distances isn't a "little math and physics." You say that as if any sixth grader should be able to churn out the numbers without any problem. It actually requires calculus and mechanics to figure out, something that even most smart people don't really know or care about. (But since I spent over two years as a physics major in college and took mechanics and second-year calculus my first quarter--and got A's in both--I might know a little about it.)

Second of all, I guess that means that technically, since the stopping distance-to-velocity equation holds even for very small values of velocity, we should really all just stay home. Anything else is just grossly unsafe.

Third of all, traffic fatalities have actually be steadily decreasing per miles traveled. I know, it's an inconvenient little statistic, given all those maniacs out there like me who apparently don't give a rat's ass about safety.

Fourth of all, if you're going to present yourself as some sort of authority on math and physics, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Increasing your speed doesn't give diminishing returns with regards to travel time. If car A's average speed is exactly twice what car B's is, car A will arrive at its destination in exactly half the time as car B, period. Obviously, on surface streets, there's a practical limit as to how fast you can drive, but if you're able to increase your speed over a distance by x times, you will reduce your time to cover that distance by exactly a factor of x, no diminishing returns.

Also, the increase in stopping distance isn't an "expotentional" increase. It's not even an exponential increase. If it were, the stopping distance would vary as some constant to the power of the velocity. It doesn't. It varies as the square of velocity, which is a quadratic increase, not exponential.

But don't let that from keeping you from driving 55 miles per hour and feeling good about yourself. Around here, people who do that aren't making the roads safe, they're a nuisance, a road hazard that needs to take the bus instead (which, incidentally, also drives faster than 55) so that normal people can actually get where they're going.

The deck is supported by the superstructure. This transfers the load of the deck and the traffic carried to the supports. Within the superstructure are the girders, stringers, and other structural elements. The substructure is the foundation of the bridge and transfers the loads of the structure to the ground. The superstructure is supported by the substructure elements, such as the abutments and piers.

I challenge you to show me TSA safety rules for cars :-) Different departments: NHTSA is a DOT agency that sets crash standards for automobiles. TSA is a DHS agency that ruins your life every time you fly. Pedantry aside, this car looks almost identical to the Smart Car, which has been certified by NHTSA for import.

Yes, privacy is very important -- unless you are dead, that is.

Well, when I'm dead I'll stop worrying about my privacy. Note I didn't say "IF" I die. The fact of the matter is that you will die. And the odds aren't that bad you'll die tomorrow; my friend's mother just passed away the other night, from cancer. She was only a year older than me.

In this entire century, there were fewer than 3,000 deaths by terrorists on American soil. In 2005 (the most recent year with data) there were 16,692 Murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. Meanwhile, in 2005 (again the last year the gov has published data for, there were 39,189 motor vehicle crash fatalities - twice the number of homicides.

You are twice as likely to die from some nitwit in an SUV yakking on her cell phone while adjusting the volume on the stereo than to die from a murderer. And if you are indeed murdered, the most likely suspect is your spouse. Meanwhile, in Illinois alone, 62,010 people have died from cancer so far this year! (PDF). Stroke killed 275,000 people in 2002 and accounted for about 1 of 16 deaths in the United States. And fully half a million people die each year from heart attacks.

Your fear of terrorists and criminals is sadly misguided. The terrorists and criminals you should be afraid of are the ones who manufacture cigarettes and trans-fat based oils, and the criminal terrorists who sell you food cooked in this garbage. Unfortunately no amount of government power is going to stop THEM; they OWN the government.

You are a chump. You have been brainwashed. I feel very sorry for you and the millions of cowardly brainwashed fucktards like you who would willingly give up their privacy and freedom for an illusion of safety.

-mcgrew (the K5 articles are mine BTW)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your message was arrogant and condescending, and it was. And it was unnecessary. If accident rates support banning cell phones while driving, let's discuss the merits of banning it on those merits. Whether or not the rest of the world does or whether or not that makes them "civilized" is, quite frankly, not an issue to a thinking person.

Personally, I'm not in favor of banning them. I believe strongly in personal responsibility and that the government should not try to ban everything that poses a potential risk. Next would be to ban radios, CD players, MP3 players, and fast food. I realize that by tacitly accepting those activities while driving means that everyone (myself included) is slightly more at risk. I'm ok with that. Fact remains is that I most probably will not be hurt or killed because of it. Sure, I might, but getting hurt/killed is just part of the risk of living.

And, as far as seatbelt laws go, only New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt law on the books. Personally, I always have worn a seatbelt but I'm 100% opposed to it being mandated by law. New Hampshire's slogan is both ironic in this context and true: "Live free or die!"

What I think is really ironic is that New Hampshire is the only state without a seatbelt law, but there are 3 other states that do have seatbelt laws but do not require helmets on motorcycles. I also am opposed to helmet laws (though I'd always wear one), but I think it's amazing that there are three states that require seatbelts but don't require helmets.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

As I pointed out to the other responder, I think it is somewhat ridiculous to try to compare: Jihadist believer who kills people for his beliefs. to Anti drug beliver who snitches on drug dealers for his beliefs.

I do too. That wasn't the comparison I was making. Try instead: Jihadist who dies for his beliefs vs. DEA agent who dies for his beliefs. If you put your life on the line in the belief that a better good will be the result, without empirical evidence to support that belief, then you are a fool, and deserve what's coming to you.

Finally, your claim that fewer people would die under an all-drugs-legal regime is probably incorrect. More people would die from the long-term impacts of extended drug use, and from greater drug use due to legality.

Do you have any support for that? Many, if not most, who die from illegal drugs, die because (a) the drug was more concentrated than they thought, or (b) the drug was contaminated with more harmful substances. Read up on it here. Much of that could be corrected through legalization and regulation.

To claim that you can't legitimately justify the war on drugs due to fears about the consequences of those drugs to society is just ridiculous.

You're twisting my words again. Remember, you brought up the point about people involved in drug enforcement ... believe they are saving lives. So, let's back up to fatalities:

How many people died in Hurricane Katrina? ~1500? Let's outlaw living on the coast.
How many people die each year in the U.S. because of taking aspirin? 10,000? Let's outlaw Aspirin.
How many people die in automobile accidents in the U.S. each year? 43,000? Let's outlaw automobiles.
How many people die of cigarettes in the U.S. each year? 400,000? Folks, we have a winner!!!

Once again, anyone who resorts to body count as a justification for the war on drugs is liar and a fraud.

Unfortunately this doesn't change the manufacturers' required average fuel economy across their entire fleet (CAFE standards since that calculation is measured differently than what the EPA uses to put on the window sticker. EVERY car's fuel economy will go down, but this in no way is going to lead to a rise in fuel economy standards -- it's just appearances.

Also, does anyone else think it a bit silly that manufacturers advertise subcompacts as fuel efficient when they get an average of 30+ mpg (pre-EPA change)? Whereas in Europe cars AVERAGE 33 mpg? Manufacturers say that people don't want little fuel efficient cars over gas guzzling sedans, but honestly when the difference in economy is 30 mpg vs. 25 mpg it makes no difference!

Just a thought: it seems to me that many people who would likely buy a small, gas sipping car are the same cheapos (like me) who would keep their current car as long as they can. So they tend to buy fewer cars (and therefore fewer fuel-efficient cars) in general. Whereas the folks who don't care for gas mileage may buy gas guzzling cars more frequently...

And a gripe: Why do people keep using any dollar figure less than $3.00 for fuel estimates in comparing the recovery costs of hybrids? Gas prices have tripled in the past 8 years -- what makes people think that we will pay $2.60/gal for gas over the next 10 years? Take the bus! Tell your kids to bike to soccer practice! That's what I did as a kid, uphill both ways.

10000 people a year. Compare that to an average of about 36000 a year caused by accidental automobile accidents. (You can find other sources if you google.) That's almost 100 people dying per day. Essentially, more than three times as many people are killed by accident by automobiles than are killed intentionally by guns. But you don't hear anyone wanting to ban cars.

I guess people feel in their gut the truthiness behind the necessity of banning guns. Legitimate use, illegal weapons used for crime, alternative weapons? Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.

I envision conversations with your auto dealer now. "Yes sir we understand that the cars brake system locks up randomly, but the CPU manufacturer has assured us that they will be releasing a new patch that might fix the problem in just a few months."

Chrysler just did that. Over 60,000 vehicles had to be recalled for a software upgrade to the braking and stability control system.

Manufacturer : DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V493000
Mfr's Report Date : DEC 22, 2006
Component: SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:ANTILOCK:CONTROL UNIT/MODULE
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 50665

• CHRYSLER / 300 2007
• CHRYSLER / SEBRING 2007
• DODGE / CALIBER 2007
• DODGE / CHARGER 2007
• DODGE / MAGNUM 2007
• DODGE / NITRO 2007
• JEEP / COMMANDER 2007
• JEEP / COMPASS 2007
• JEEP / GRAND CHEROKEE 2007
• JEEP / LIBERTY 2007
• JEEP / WRANGLER 2007

Bullshit. There could be this exact sort of high speed rail between Boston and New York, Chicago and Detroit, and L.A. to Seattle with say 120 MPH connector trains in the flatlands for literally 1/10th the cost of Bush disastrous pointless war in Iraq. Follow the Benjamins it's all about the O I L companies in the U.S:

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_high-speed _rail
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/High -Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations_53kb.png

Upgrading U.S. train track is 8 times cheaper than building new freeways:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/201

Get some fact before just regurgitating what you hear on Rush (brought to you by the Hummer H5 now including it's own entrance ladder).

Your Escalade, with a curb weight of 5333-5560 lbs (depending on what trim you bought) and a GVWR of 6800 - 7000 lbs (again depending on trim) and your Tahoe were both exempt from the following government-minimum safety standard:

Standard No. 216: Roof Crush Resistance Scope and Purpose: This standard establishes strength requirements for the passenger compartment roof to reduce deaths and injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the occupant compartment in rollover crashes. Application: Passenger cars (except convertibles) and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses (except school buses) with a GVWR of 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) or less

And that roof crush standard, which neither of your vehicles even had to meet, is incredibly lax. Thanks in large part to Detroit's automakers, that roof crush standard hasn't been updated since 1971. And it only requires a vehicle to support 1.5 times its weight on the roof - trivial compared to the actual forces exerted in a rollover.

I guess in some ways I've gotten off topic, but in another, this is just a really good example of why companies will *always* find a way to skirt government regs, or better yet, keep them outdated and ineffectual, even when it harms customers.

In the US, this is being studied under the general heading of VII or Vehicle Infrastructure Integration. The general concept is "cars will talk to infrastructure, infrastructure will talk to cars, and cars will talk to cars."

From the USDOT web site: http://www.its.dot.gov/vii/vii_concept.htm/

The article refers to an oil slick--those are relatively rare--an if there is an oil slick (or fuel spill), generally there is a crash that would be slowing down traffic anyway. However, the data could be used to dispatch hazmat, or the police. If air bag use is detected, EMS could be alerted automatically.

A better example of a use in northern climes--icy bridges. Currently, many bridges have permanent signs that say "Bridge may be icy" even in August when it is 100*F. The sign isn't much use. However, when the temperature is 35*F and dropping, temperature sensors in the vehicles and bridges could put out a silent warning. If someone brakes on the bridge, slip information from the ABS sensor could be monitored to determine the friction in the bridge deck. Once the bridge deck freezes, a roadside sign upstream of the bridge could be activated to say "Caution, the bridge is slightly/very/black ice. Proceed with caution."

In a larger context, the vehicle fleet could be used to monitor the condition of roads. There is a correlation between the bumpiness of the road and age. The changes in the condition over time can help determine what road maintenance should be undertaken.

It kind of works the other way round, see the DOT/NHSA issues safety standards that manufacturers must follow for automobiles to be sold/driven in the US.

As an example here are the proposed rule changes on convex mirrrors on big pickups.
noticed how long the comment/approval system takes to change this rule.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/NPRM-F MVSS/NPRM-RearviewMirrors.html
-snippet-V
Option 1: Cross-View Mirrors

Under the first proposed compliance option, a cross-view mirror system would be required. A cross-view mirror is typically a convex mirror mounted on the driver's side, upper rear corner of a vehicle that is used in conjunction with the driver's side exterior rearview mirror to view the area directly behind a vehicle.

The cross-view mirror would be required to: (1) have no discontinuities in the slope of its surface; (2) be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions; (3) be installed on stable supports on the upper rear corner of the driver's side of the vehicle; (4) have an average radius of curvature of no less than 203 millimeters (mm), and (5) be placed such that the geometric centers of the two mirrors would be separated by no more than 5 m.

We also are proposing test requirements to ensure that the mirror system provides a detection zone that would permit the driver to survey the area behind the vehicle for obstacles before backing. The proposed test requirements would be similar in nature to the school bus mirror test requirements of FMVSS No. 111, which utilize a number of cylinders to simulate objects that would be difficult or impossible to see without the aid of mirrors.

More info on the process here...http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/200702/nhts a.htm?type=html

It kind of works the other way round, see the DOT/NHSA issues safety standards that manufacturers must follow for automobiles to be sold/driven in the US.

As an example here are the proposed rule changes on convex mirrrors on big pickups.
noticed how long the comment/approval system takes to change this rule.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/NPRM-F MVSS/NPRM-RearviewMirrors.html
-snippet-V
Option 1: Cross-View Mirrors

Under the first proposed compliance option, a cross-view mirror system would be required. A cross-view mirror is typically a convex mirror mounted on the driver's side, upper rear corner of a vehicle that is used in conjunction with the driver's side exterior rearview mirror to view the area directly behind a vehicle.

The cross-view mirror would be required to: (1) have no discontinuities in the slope of its surface; (2) be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions; (3) be installed on stable supports on the upper rear corner of the driver's side of the vehicle; (4) have an average radius of curvature of no less than 203 millimeters (mm), and (5) be placed such that the geometric centers of the two mirrors would be separated by no more than 5 m.

We also are proposing test requirements to ensure that the mirror system provides a detection zone that would permit the driver to survey the area behind the vehicle for obstacles before backing. The proposed test requirements would be similar in nature to the school bus mirror test requirements of FMVSS No. 111, which utilize a number of cylinders to simulate objects that would be difficult or impossible to see without the aid of mirrors.

More info on the process here...http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/200702/nhts a.htm?type=html

A "standard automobile" may not be shipped from the factory with anything other than a flat mirror on the driver's side. This is not true in Europe or in Japan. Trucks and Buses are another story. And none of It is determined by state - this is federal law. See, for example

this DOT report on the topic..

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

I couldn't find any statistics going back as far as I'd liked to, but something has caused a decrease in the death rate (per capita and per auto-mile) for both pedestrians and motorists over the last 12 years. I think that the downward trend started well before 1994, but I can't seem to find the numbers at the moment.

The controversial section required states to sign a new compact as written by the AAMVA which is composed of high level executives from law enforcement and motor vehicle agencies. The compact is called Driver License Agreement (DLA). The AAMVA is pushing the DLA pretty hard and we need to keep an eye on state legislatures to make sure it does not pass. The AAMVA is even using Federal money from NHTSA to get states to sign it. NHTSA is an organization in the Federal Gov't that supported draconian enforcement of traffic laws and are big proponents of a 55 mph speed limit. They also refuse to change regulations to allow our headlights to be improved and get to the level of the European spec headlamps.

In addition to the data sharing from the agreement, it would require traffic violations to be reported and ant state who has signed it MUST put it on record with POINTS. Even down to the in-consequential minor violation such as no front license plate. Most states do not put equipment, registration and parking violations on a driver's record. With the DLA, they MUST put it on.

Unlike the Driver License Compact (DLC) and the Non Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) which was written with imput from State Legislatures, the DLA was written without their input. Most states that sign those two compacts pretty well follow the views of them but some states like Colorado and a few others do not assign points for minor out of state traffic offenses. On the NRVC, another state cannot ask your home state to pull your license for blowing off such minor tickets such as parking or registration violations and it is mainly aimed for moving violations such as speeding.

The AAMVA is a Non-Governmental Organization that proposes and pushes policy very hard but yet, they are not subject to open door laws. If you go to their web site, many items related to the DLA are locked out with a Username/Password combination. When Rep. Sensenbrenner pushed the Real ID Act back in 2005, I inquired about the DLA and in no uncertain terms, I was told that is was none of my business !

it is my understanding that trikes are not necessarily easier to ride. if you can ride a bicycle you can ride a motorcycle. once you start moving physics takes over. it is hard to put a bike down. a smaller bike, like one that gets 70+, will be easier to control when you start and stop. this is due to the lighter weight. i strongly suggest taking a course in riding a bike before you buy one. i think most are two days over a weekend.

not to scare you but... ...some accident trends for motorcycles to look out for. my dad has been hit twice and still rides. his old helmets dont look so hot, but his head is still on. i, knock on wood, never have been in an accident.

Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace. Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

You want the figures... here's an analysis of the numbers from the NHTSA themselves...

If you can prove the claim, here's $20,000 for you...

And... well... you can't cry if I link the NHTSA's actual numbers, can you? Of course, pay special attention to the passenger, rider, and NON-OCCUPANT figures... that means that the driver had no alcohol in his system, but someone in the car did...

And please note the difference between alcohol-related, and BAC .08+. Also, please do a little look to see what .08 BAC does to reflexes... and how little it takes to get there.

Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.

Or look into the GAO's research to the NHTSA's claims...

I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them, nor can I make you believe in them.

Nephilium... currently enjoying a tasty barleywine...

Sometimes too much drink is barely enough. -- Mark Twain, American novelist

Mercifully, the US is the only jurisdiction (as far as I know, at least) where the law is broken in this way.

Agreed! The mercy part at least. But in other countries the law works for big business or wealthy not for the people.

And this, fundamentally, is where we disagree. What you do as a private individual on your own private property is your business, and I agree that governments should be heavily against interfering in such matters. But when you open a business to the public, the rules change. In the catering trade, you are required to meet basic food hygiene standards, for example. You have certain health and safety obligations, certain concessions you must make to those with disabilities, restrictions on misleading advertising, and so on. These things are the price of doing business in a society that has decided the interests of the people outweight the interests of profit-makers. I fail to see why this law is any different in principle to the others, or any less justified.

As I haven't thought of it that way, you've given me soemthing to think about. I probably won't but you may of given me info that will change my mind.

As a business owner, you have no legal rights and freedoms in most places. Get over it.

I was afraid I'd see this. After how you made the statement wherein I said you gave me something to think about, in which you used reasoning, you then come up with an antaganistic remark like "Get over it." All that does is provoke the defensive response and shuts down thinking.

Another straw man. The cost to society of banning smoking is a little inconvenience to a minority of people, who will get over it, while the benefit is a much healthier society. The cost to society of banning road transport would be staggering, and not just in financial terms. The cases aren't even remotely comparable.

Motorized vehicles are insignificant compared to secondhand smoke? Let me see if I can find statistics on the rate of death compared to vehicles versus the same rate for secondhand smoke.... Guess I didn't take long enough tyme to find actual statistics but I didn't find any that actually stated how many people die from secondhand smoke, just things like "thousands" and "more than 3000". But out of the those numbers how many deaths can actually be atributed directly to secondhand smoke versus say lung cancer from Radon gas? Now for vehicles: According to the government's National Center for Statistics and Analysis more than 43,443 people died in vehicular accidents(pdf) in 2005. I bet that's a hell of a lot more people than the number who died from secondhand smoke.