Slashdot Mirror

Part of the problem is that the environmental noise has gotten so bad, headphone wearers have to crank their portable devices to be able to hear their tunes over the noise of traffic, trains, construction, etc.

It's kinda sad that Congress wants to talk about iPod volume levels when in fact the government has the power to directly affect some of the underlying causes.

[disclaimer: I worked on some of the documents linked above]

Part of the problem is that the environmental noise has gotten so bad, headphone wearers have to crank their portable devices to be able to hear their tunes over the noise of traffic, trains, construction, etc.

It's kinda sad that Congress wants to talk about iPod volume levels when in fact the government has the power to directly affect some of the underlying causes.

[disclaimer: I worked on some of the documents linked above]

I'd say it is highly likely that evolution has slowed down over the past couple of hundred years. As we learn to treat more and more genetic diseases, less pressure is placed on removing those genes.

On those genes, maybe.

In 2002, there were 845.3 deaths per 100,000 people.

14.94 of those were fatalities due to motor vehicle crashes.

Humans were not optimally adapted, by life on the African savannah, to controlling several tons of vehicle attaining speeds in excess of sixty miles an hour.

While not all motor vehicle accidents can be avoided by the victim, it seems likely that genes for reaction time, eyesight, and especially risk-taking vs. risk avoidance may play some role in determining differential likelihoods of being involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident.

So I would expect that evolution continues to work.

"The rule requires U.S. and foreign airlines to collect the full name of each U.S. citizen traveling on flights to or from the United States and to solicit a contact name and telephone number from those passengers. In the event of an aviation disaster, the airlines would be required to provide the manifest to the Department of State."
  -- http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/dot2598.htm

Guess you're special.

Even if 9/11 happened every day for a year more people would have died to car accidents,

That may be a bit of an exaggeration. According to the the DOT 42,196 people died in car crashes in 2001 (and for the next three years within 1,000 of that number). The death toll of 9/11 is 2,986.

2,986 * 365 = 1,089,890, or approximately 26 times the number of automotive fatalities.

Now, one could also interpret your statement as to automotive fatalities for all time, but then one would have to consider all terrorism-related deaths for all time (and debate whether to consider one or both of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc).

The point, though, is still clear. The average person appears much more likely (provided the risk of a WMD-based attack on the US is sufficiently small) to be killed in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist attack. Of course, it's that fear of a WMD-based attack that gets people really anxious.

Some people here have likened this to "payola". A better analogy would be high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes:

One of the most recent management concepts - High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes - combines HOV and pricing strategies by allowing single occupancy vehicles to gain access to HOV lanes by paying a toll. The lanes are "managed" through pricing to maintain free flow conditions even during the height of rush hours. The appeal of this concept is tri-fold:

• It expands mobility options in congested urban areas by providing an opportunity for reliable travel times to users prepared to pay a significant premium for this service
• It generates a new source of revenue which can be used to pay for transportation improvements, including enhanced transit service
• It improves the efficiency of HOV facilities, which is especially important given the recent decline in HOV mode share in 36 of the 40 largest metro areas.

The combined ability of HOT operations to introduce additional traffic to existing HOV facilities, while using price and other management techniques to control the number of additional motorists and maintain high service levels, renders the HOT lane concept a promising means of reducing congestion and improving service on the existing highway system.

If one company chooses to levy a fee for access, does it not follow that consumers would rationally choose to switch to another company, or accept the fee? The idea that the government might pass a law outlawing what should be a simple business policy is frightening.

The #1 problem with drunk driving is being able to react to hazards in a timely manner... Staying in lane is easy.

Not to go too far off topic, but NHTSA studies found four behaviors that highly correlate with DUI. Number one is "Problems in maintaining proper lane position."

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/dwi /dwihtml/

Perhaps those of you that are so vehemently against the NSA's actions would like to be in the next crowd of people that die from a terrorist attack when, not if, it happens?

Please, give it a rest already. First off, you're going to die no matter what. Second, if its inevitable that another terrorist attack is going to happen, then why violate well established law if its not going to stop an attack?

Would that make you happy if it meant dying because your whining and crying changed the law to make it illegal to wiretap a conversation from a phone outside our country to a known terrorist?

I'd be dead, so I probably wouldn't care either way anymore. At any rate, I think you need to get your facts straight; an American calling another country is STILl protected by the US Consititution. I know, you hate law, it gets in the way of whatever Bush wants to do. Lets go back to rule of man, that was a much better system.

If that meant that call wasn't monitored and they were able to carry out another attack and you or your family died? Would that make you happy?

What kind of idiocy is that? Your question does nothing to argue about the legality of the wiretaps, you're attempting to play on emotions to force people into action without thinking, because you're so fucking scared of dying. Like a child (or an animal), you have no thought process and act soley on your emotions. Good for you, you're being played by the terrorists like a fiddle. For a reality check, there were at least 10.5 times the amount of traffic fatalities as there were killed in the WTC attack. So you're much more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.

I REALLY wish people would stop making statements of "fact" that the wiretaps were illegal.

They were. You ignore the FACT that there are two people (at least) in a phone converstation, and calls going overseas involve (at least) one US citizen. A wiretap is a search, and a search is illegal unless it was authorized by a warrant. That's called Due Process and spelled out very clearly in the 4th Amendment. No warrant for a wiretap that involves a US citizen is an illegal search. It doesn't matter if its the NSA, or FBI, or the President himself, the government can't do it.

It's LEGAL for the NSA to wiretap that conversation! The NSA deals with people outside the USA making contact with others outsite the USA AND those outside contacting people inside our country.

The bold part is where it becomes illegal; again, try reading the 4th Amendment sometime. Your own arguement admits spying was done inside the country without a warrant. Not very bright..

ABS is not designed to make the car stop faster.

Go ahead and read the ABS Q&A you linked: it says that on-average, ABS does reduce stopping distance. (Whether or not that was the main intention of the designers is beside the point)

Though I don't think ABS makes the stopping distance longer

Once again, read the Q&A and see that it sometimes does lengthen it. Hypothetically, a person who knew exactly what conditions to expect might prefer to occasionally turn it off.

ABS is not designed to make the car stop faster. ABS is designed to enable the driver to maintain maximum control over the car while breaking. ABS Q&A. If you skid you don't steer. Though I don't think ABS makes the stopping distance longer so I don't see the need for your proposed kill-switch. Please don't use it if driving behind me..

Also take into consideration that the development of ABS just might have improved it in the last 13 years..

I would take my 2005 Skodas ABS, EDS and ESP Electronic Stability Programme over unassisted braking anyday.

Uh, no. DOT 5 fluid is silicone by definition. DOT 5.1 is not silicone based. This is what the Elf fluid you mentioned is classified as.

Since we're picking nits; DOT 5.1 fluid IS DOT 5 fluid. It's just not SBBF. Related documentation appears below:

S5.2.2.1 Each manufacturer of a DOT grade brake fluid shall furnish to each packager, distributor, or dealer to whom he/she delivers brake fluid, the following information:

(a) A serial number identifying the production lot and the date of manufacture of the brake fluid.

(b) The grade (DO3, DO4, DO5) of the brake fluid. If DO5 grade brake fluid, it shall be further distinguished as "DO5 SILICONE BASE" or "DO5.1 NON-SILICONE BASE."

(http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/admini stration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=777&sect ion=571.116&section_toc=2082)

If it's DO5, then it will be further distinguished. It's all DO5.

I mean, if we're picking nits, I can pick 'em with the best of 'em.

Truck -

• a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive)
• or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck);
• or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions:
  1. transport more than 10 people;
  2. provide temporary living quarters;
  3. transport property in an open bed;
  4. permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or
  5. can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.

Again, since this information is a decade old, from when ABS was comparatively uncommon, I suggest that the situation may have changed significantly in that time as people have grown used to it and understand it better.

I went and looked up the rollover ratings for the Tahoe, BTW. Rollover testing didn't start until 2001, but in that year, the NHTSA rollover resistance rating for the 2WD model is only two stars, and the rating for the 4WD model is three stars. Not exactly spectacular, though better than Ford seems to have done -- they apparently don't have ratings for many of their SUVs, and where they do, they tend behind at least the Tahoe.

The main difference is the body style and bumper height. The bumpers for minivans are close to or at the height required for passenger vehicles. This results in crashes that are much different than an SUV crash. Further, the center of gravity is lower on a minivan than an SUV, though not a lot.

Of course, one can always mine the data oneself. The query function is fairly easy to use.

-Adam

From the same guys:

But there is definitely the other side of the coin. In June of 1995, Delmas Maxwell Johnson of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the finding that, with passenger cars, there were actually significant increases in fatal rollover crashes in vehicles with ABS. E. Hertz, also with NHTSA, likewise noted that passenger cars with ABS were "more likely to experience fatal rollovers." Johnson, in his article, "Analysis of the Crash Experience of Vehicles Equipped with Antilock Braking Systems (ABS)", observed at the time: "...NHTSA estimates that there has been little or no net crash reduction with ABS, to date." from http://www.brennanlaw.com/lemonlaw/absjury.htm

And...

Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers. from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV /

same url:

In fatal crashes, SUVs are twice as likely to have rolled over than passenger cars. A rollover increases the likelihood of occupant ejection, fatality or injury.

same url:

Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers.

From http://forums.vmag.com/suvtahyuk1099/messages/7217 .html

We just rolled a 2000 Tahoe on the highway at under 55 mph. Appling brakes firmly on dry surface should seemingly not cause the vehicle to start skidding sideways leading to a roll should it?

There is no mention of cost in the star ratings that I'm aware of.
The determination is risk of injury.
My favourite is the offset crash test.
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/default.aspx

The standard five star rating is explained here.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/index.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/pages/CrashTestRatings.htm

There is no mention of cost in the star ratings that I'm aware of.
The determination is risk of injury.
My favourite is the offset crash test.
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/default.aspx

The standard five star rating is explained here.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/index.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/pages/CrashTestRatings.htm

From the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without?
ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions."

ABS is about control, not stopping distances. It allows you to retain control of your vehicle by preventing the wheels from locking up. As such, ABS will not reduce your velocity as much as tradtitional brakes and you will therefore impact with more energy.

However, the benefits of ABS and being able to avoid the collision outweighs the costs of reduced stopping force. So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities. but used correctly, ABS can help you avoid a collision altogether.

So in some cases (when you cannot maneuver) it is more dangerous, in some cases it is safer.

While it says that the most common accidents - rear enders - were decreased, it goes on to say "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. "

Also, if you want to see the DOT docket for this, go here:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

The docket number is FAA-2005-23449 but all you should enter in the search field is 23449. Right now there's only one comment. I don't know if the DOT has electronic commenting enabled like the FCC does.

This Act specifies the requirements for doorways and other design specs: http://www.fta.dot.gov/14534_5608_ENG_HTML.htm

The regulations that help those with disabilities, I am afraid, can and most likely will in the US, take away the chances of this market ever taking off. As the parent of this comment has stated about the Wright Bros., the government could have shut the whole industry down before it even started. Obviously, the laws that are designed to protect people from themselves can stifle innovation and progress to the detriment of society.

And you can get a driver's licence as young as 14 in some States. In the United States in 2001 there were the following numbers of deaths from firearms Suicide 16,869, Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231. The same year there were 37,500 fatal auto accidents.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 19,928, Alcoholic liver disease: 12,121
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

Taking out Suicide from firearms, since a suicidal person is going to end it anyway they can, I reckon that driving and alcohol are both more dangerous than guns.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/publ414 .106.pdf

Go ahead and search it. It requires better labelling, but no RFID chips. There doesn't even seem to be anything in there to even let you identify a particular tire, just perhaps model and manufacture date or something.

Conspiracy theorists (and trolls) never check their sources too carefully, it just dampenens the ranting.

The underlying causes of congestion are far more complicated than many traditional interests have historically been willing to admit. The ability of available roadway space - the most traditional method of measuring supply or capacity as expressed in lane-miles - to meet traffic demand as measured in vehicle miles traveled, is just one of a set of several underlying factors that research has found contribute to traffic congestion.

"FHWA is focusing its efforts on addressing both the recurring and non-recurring portions of the traffic congestion problem. In addition to providing substantial assistance to State and local transportation agencies as they develop projects to increase capacity and remove bottlenecks, FHWA is also focusing on short-term initiatives to mitigate congestion through effective system management and operations strategies. FHWA has designated congestion mitigation as one of its "vital few" priorities and is focusing resources on developing and sustaining regional partnerships to address all aspects of congestion and working to reduce two of the most prevalent causes of traffic congestion: work zones and traffic incidents."

• "Plans for the autobahn date to the 1920's. Construction of the first segment (Cologne-Bonn) began in 1929 and was dedicated by Mayor Konrad Adenauer of Cologne on August 6, 1932. When Adolph Hitler assumed power as Chancellor of the Third Reich in 1933, he took the program over, claiming it for his own. "We are setting up a program," he said later that year, "the execution of which we do not want to leave to posterity."
• Hitler's autobahn construction began in September 1933 ... By December 1941, when wartime needs brought construction to a halt, Germany had completed 2,400 miles (3,860 km), with another 1,550 miles (2,500 km) under construction.
• At the outset of World War II in Europe, the autobahn proved to be a key asset to Germany. The German blitzkrieg ("lightning war"), which involved massive coordinated air and ground attacks to stun opponents into defeat, was a key to the German defeat of Poland in 1939, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands in 1940, and the Soviet Army in 1941. The highway network also enhanced Germany's ability to fight on two fronts-Europe in the west, the Soviet Union in the east."
• "As the Allies pursued the German forces across Germany, the autobahn proved invaluable, especially to the supply trucks racing behind the troops. [referring to sections of the autobahn captured by the allies] "
• "For Eisenhower, the vision o

Particulate emissions is a big problem with diesel, but not nessessarily biodiesel. The Diesel that we run on in our country has sulfur added to it as a lubricant, and sooty sulfur compounds are a result. Biodiesel doesn't need to have sulfur added as it is naturally lubricating. Most pollutants that are high in diesel is significantly reduced as a result of running straight biodiesel as compared to diesel, with the exception of NOx (which is slightly increased but can be compensated for by advancing the timing on the engine). But to get this reduction you would need to not run a blend with diesel. My old DOT bookmark is broken, but this site has numbers that were similar. Please take with grain of salt: http://www.geocities.com/medicalmarijuana2003/fact 29.htm

As far as the other folks' concerns on having enough crop space. Try checking out this Government funded study which concludes that much of the needed biodiesel can be harvested from algae (which can be up to 50% oil) that is grown in places like the Sonoran desert. We can also use municipal waste runoff to fertilize it. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

For reasons that are going to become obvious, I am going to use statistics from 2001.

Take a look http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/FinalReport.cfm?stat eid=0&title=people&title2=all_victims&year=2001#qu ery1

Most fatal accidents occur in normal weather, and over half occurred not only in normal weather but also during daylight.

So I don't buy the "Act of God" explenation. Most of these are caused by negligence and are ultimately avoidable.

Now, 42191 were killed in 2001. Under any scenario I can find, it looks like more people were killed in September 2001 by auto accidents than by terrorists. This is what makes this significant from a public safety perspective.

I.e. Al Qaeda would have to carry out a 14 Sept 11th magnitude attacks every year to make this a bigger threat to public safety than that posed by the automobile. Indeed in Israel when more Israelis were killed by terrorists than auto accidents it made national headlines because it has only happened once.

So my question is whether we should be worrying about terrorists or auto accidents. Clearly from an objective perspective, auto accidents are where we should be spending most of our effort.

I couldn't agree more. We need to start with the news media. They report daily American soldier body counts coming from Iraq, but rarely anything about the tremendous numbers of Americans that die daily, not in a combat zone, but on the roads of their own land. Reportedly 42,643 people perished on our highways in 2003. That's a little over 116 people per day! They call it an unusually bloody day in Iraq when we lose around half a dozen or so or more of our own. So what do we call what goes on every single day here, genocide? I guess that makes the war in Iraq, like terrorism, a bogeyman.

"In fact, new cars make so little CO you can't kill yourself with them any more."

I'd like some sources for this, not to say I dont trust a /. poster by the name of P3NIS CLEAVER, but people are still in the news committing suicide in rather modern cars (I dont remember the details of the most recent one I heard about) in the gerage.

You might want to check http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/Non Traffic-NonCrash/Images/noncrash.pdf this out.

Considering that the Prius has to be a new purchase, the mainstay of the comparison should have been between a gasoline car of similar performance or a gasoline cars of similar price. Instead, there was only a brief aside of comparing a Toyota Prius vs a Toyota Corolla, the mainstay was against a 99' accord. This is problematic on several levels:
1. It spread the net cost of the vehicle across the expected loan cycle against the "zero cost" of a 6 year old vehicle, which tend to enter higher maintenance cost as it is almost always out of warrantee and is a older vehicle. This is a stacked comparison.

2. It assumed that a person wouldn't want to replace a 6 year old vehicle. This is odd as typical car US fleet is 9 yrs old http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p3.htm/, a 6 year old car should be close to the replacement age.

3. When it chose a new automobile, it chose a economy car instead of a car of comparable performance as opposed to a 2006 Accord (avg msrp 24000), when it was ok to compare to a 1999 Accord because it was paid off. Also, it used a trade in value, when Accords are well known for having very high blue book values. 1999 Accords list from 8300-10700 in the blue book, the lower end should have been used for this, if at all

4. The base MSRP for the 2006 Corolla is 14000-17000, the author cherry picked the most base number for comparison when the standard package in the Prius is comparable to a 16000 Corolla.

5. It also discounts any tax incentives in the main comparison, only listing the gov't tax breaks in other factors when the main focus of the article is on the monetary impact. Performance and maintenance also has real world values he could have used, but that value is more debatable.

Overall, the article, tho it lists all factors, cherry picks comparisons to focus on to paint the hybrids as a very poor economic choice. Making the implication that the hybrids is far out of the value minded mainstream, when the real life costs is only probably 30-50$/month over the life of the loan

I think UN control of anything technological will fail. They take far too long to make up their minds, so any technological standards that need to be implemented will be agreed upon when they are obsolete

This isn't true. Take the example of high-tech automobile headlamps. The UN body responsible for global headlamp regulations (GRE) is very close to finishing rules that will allow for LED headlamps. NHTSA, which does the same thing in the US has completely given up on making _any_ LED regulations for the forseable future because it's so hard to get safety related stuff through congress. In this case the UN is far ahead of the US in technical rule-making and you can see evidence of this in the relative technology contents of a typical American vehicle and a typical European vehicle.

-Pinkoir

Er,

For hydrogen to explode, it needs oxygen.

If the tank ruptures, the gas as light as it is would expand throughout the air very very quickly.

This isn't like lighting a balloon filled with hydrogen with a candle and watching the brief poof of flame.

This is like having a candle five feet away from a balloon filled with hydrogen and popping the balloon. That is, if there is a fire involved in the collission.

How often do collisions result in fire? I did a little bit of research into this, but the best I could find was that "crashes with fires are relatively rare" (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evalua te/807675.html).

To explore this a little further:

What causes a fire in an automotive accident? Faulty gas tanks and fuel lines. This results in leakage. The vapors (which are MUCH heavier than hydrogen) then get sparked by something. This ignites the vapors, leading back to the fuel tank which then catches fire. I've witnessed car fires before (a few months ago, a car in the parking lot of my apartment complex caught fire). The fire burned for 10 minutes before fire response arrived. In that time, the fire spread from one car to the two cars on either side. It took fire response about five minutes to put the fires out. During this 15 minute time period, the materials that were burning included the interior of the car, under the hood, and the tires. The only violent explosions that occurred were the tires exploding.

I'm theorizing the reason the gas tanks didn't ignite is that gasoline requires a very oxygen rich environment. Gasoline requires a 1.4% - 7.6% concentration in air for it to be explosive. Any less than this and it will merely ignite; any more than this and there isn't enough oxygen for it to explode. It will simply ignite. The pre-existing fire probably used up most of the oxygen near the fuel lines. There was probably a phenomenon similar to what you see with an oil well - a jet of flame from the fuel line. Hollywood car explosions just don't happen.

Now, on to hydrogen.

Hydrogen, being much lighter than air (as opposed to natural gas or gasoline vapors), dissipates very quickly in air. At concentrations of less than 10%, it would require the same ammount of energy to ignite as would natural gas. The main point here, is that hydrogen dissipates so quickly that the concentration would very quickly reach less than 4% (the lower limit of explosivity). The likelyhood of explosions is much less likely than with even gasoline because of this.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells do not use any sparking or arcing componants. Similarly, the engine is a simple electronic engine. If something shorted, it could spark - but there is no combustion inherent in a fuel cell car. This limits the chances of even igniting the hydrogen in the case of a leak.

Fuel cells are also equipped with automatic shutoffs in case a leak is detected. This can't help if the storage tank itself is ruptured, but that would be difficult (Normal air tanks for scuba divers are very difficult to rupture, and tanks used to transport flamable liquid are even more difficult to rupture).

The myth of the exploding hydrogen car can be linked to two things: the hindenberg and the hydrogen bomb.

The hindenberg burned, rather than exploded. The color of the flame was wrong for hydrogen to be the propellant. It's very likely that it was the flamable fabric covering the zeppelin that ignited, not a leaking hydrogen tank.

A hydrogen bomb requires special isotopes of H2, and very high temperatures. Neither of which would be found in a car fire or a hydrogen fuel cell car.

For more on hydrogen fuel cell safety: http://sanewsletters.com/FCIR/fcirfctpart1.pdf

In the meantime, stop propogating myth and FUD.

Given its length, and the presumably large number of people that could be on it at a time, I presume it would be a potential target for terrorists or organized crime (hey, it's Sicily...) based on past threats against bridges and tunnels by terrorist groups.

How would they prevent against this? It seems such a bridge has two critical failure points at both ends and one or more in the middle.

I know they have water to cross, so its size doesn't appear to be the motivation, as say for the tallest building etc. but I think these are issues which (sadly) need to be considered.

while motorcycles ARE inherently more dangerous and more difficult to operate than cars (ie. they offer little or no protection in a crash, must be balanced, etc.) the common perception that they are "dramatically more dangerous than cars" is just plain misinformation.

feel free to check out the comprehensive study published by the national highway traffic safety administration here:http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbim ot/motorcycle/00-NHT-212-motorcycle/toc.html

the basics: learn how to ride properly, wear a good helmet (full face, DOT and SNELL approved), obey the speed and traffic laws, don't drink and drive, remain aware of your surroundings and the other drivers around you. follow these basic rules and you probably won't get into a serious accident. if you're pulling wheelies on the highway at 95 mph while drunk and not wearing a helmet on the first day you get your license, you've got the life expectency of a jellyfish in a blast furnace (to steal a phrase from terry pratchett).

for a great deal of riders "going down" involves a twisted ankle and scraping up one of your farings after slipping on a patch of gravel at an intersection, not blasting into a guard rail at 80 mph.

For autos above 30 mph on level roads, wheel/road noise dominates. For medium and heavy trucks, it tends to be an almost even mix of exhaust/stack noise and wheel/road noise. For trucks going uphill, (I think) engine noise dominates.

More info in the Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual.

Actually, the US DOT and other regional and state bodies are pretty serious about implementing High Speed Rail, which can work just as well as it does in Europe if given a chance. A quick Google search reveals myriad US high speed rail projects: http://www.google.com/search?q=high+speed+rail and the DOT's department doesn't even feature in the top ten: http://www.fra.dot.gov/

My only criticism of current thinking in High Speed Rail is that it is being considered almost exclusively for passenger rail; i.e. to rival the private car, and not for freight. Removing trucks from interstates would free up fantastic amounts of capacity for private cars, and as, for instance, the shipping business like UPS/FedEx works on a hub-basis, the rigidity of relying on rail lines is not a problem. A single train can replace upwards of 200 trucks, and a high speed train on a dedicated track could reach speeds of 120-160 mph.

Unfortunately rail infrastructure is phenomenally expensive. While most old rail rights of way (whether still in use or not) still exist, but their curves are too sharp for high speed rail, so in many places they're useless. Right of way acquisition is contentious, not only because in many cases you're buying private land, but because rail lines, particularly high speed rail lines, pose barriers to travel and can segregate communities. There's a reason we have the expression "from the wrong side of the tracks."

On the other hand, if the country is to continue developing, the need for transport will continue to grow. Eventually the interstates will need to be widened throughout the country. If you add up the cost of widening the Interstates and the cost of lost time and wasted fuel during construction disturbances, then suddenly the cost of implementing High Speed Rail doesn't seem as prohibitive.

Imagine a biodiesel high speed train, cutting overland shipping times from LA to NY in half. The greens would love it. (Biodiesel is created with atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, so while it spews CO2 as a by-product of internal combustion, it is only returning the CO2 to the atmosphere in order for it to be recycled into more biodiesel.) The Teamsters would hate it. (A train only needs one driver, perhaps two.) But will the shipping companies come on board?

Only if you're an idiot. This shows you that ABS ISN'T about stopping faster. It will help you stop faster if your idea of hitting the brakes is to stand on the pedal. In that situation, ABS will indeed stop you quicker. However, if you do threshold braking, you'll stop quicker than ABS, which is just a really fast way of pumping the brakes.

1) Gas Guzzler Tax (not applied to vehicles > 6000lbs)
2) 100% tax deduction for vehicles > 6000lbs
3) New rules? You mean the ones that Bush is actually proposing to weaken? The ones that only apply to vehicles < 8500lbs? Under NHTSA, what is the expected fuel economy for a Chevy Silverado in 2007? 22.2. Under Bush's plan in 2011? 21.3. Source?
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE05 -07/Index.html
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/italladdsup.nsf /0/fe2b16b76a051b6185257066006f4ae3?OpenDocument

(Remove the space in the first link).

Oh I almost forgot... Congress makes all the tax rules so Bush is not to blame for the problems. He is only accountable for the success of the economy. Good thing the interest rates don't affect the economy. Otherwise we might actually realize that tax cuts are not the be all end all.

1) Gas Guzzler Tax (not applied to vehicles > 6000lbs)
2) 100% tax deduction for vehicles > 6000lbs
3) New rules? You mean the ones that Bush is actually proposing to weaken? The ones that only apply to vehicles < 8500lbs? Under NHTSA, what is the expected fuel economy for a Chevy Silverado in 2007? 22.2. Under Bush's plan in 2011? 21.3. Source?
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE05 -07/Index.html
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/italladdsup.nsf /0/fe2b16b76a051b6185257066006f4ae3?OpenDocument

(Remove the space in the first link).

Oh I almost forgot... Congress makes all the tax rules so Bush is not to blame for the problems. He is only accountable for the success of the economy. Good thing the interest rates don't affect the economy. Otherwise we might actually realize that tax cuts are not the be all end all.

Maybe, but the thing I'm really interested in is not can the software be bug-free, but can it be more reliable than humans?

The article says:

One reason why people feel safer in their cars than on public transport is because they are in control of the vehicle.

The funny thing is that I feel a lot less safe because other people, people I have no control over, are in control of their vehicle. The sad fact is that so many people are so mind-numbingly stupid behind the wheel of a car that I would much rather trust software that's slightly buggy and causes a few fatal crashes a year than humans who are outright stupid that cause almost 40,000 fatal crashes a year. And yes, if that means giving up control of my car so that other people have to give up control of theirs, I'm okay with that.

Here's a link to the PDF spec sheet. Note that the regen braking isn't mentioned in the "brakes" section, but rather in the "controller" section. I suppose it's appropriate to put there, but ends up being somewhat misleading.

And here's an unsolicited link to the NHSTA's ruling on Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. It's worth a read just for some insight into the bureaucracy that's involved with manufacturing a "Low Speed Vehicle." Yuck.

Do you think an average person, or indeed, a more-than-average person can outperform ABS brakes in terms of lives saved? Do you know how unlikely that is? Remember that maximum safety is a probability, learn to live with it. That's what I learned in driving school: how braking works with it on, with it off, and why it won't save the driver from his own stupidity.

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2003
Vehicle size Rate
Car -- mini 142
Car -- small 108
Car -- midsize 66
Car -- large 61
Car -- very Large 70
Pickup -- small 124
Pickup -- large 115
Pickup -- very large 102
SUV -- small 75
SUV -- midsize 70
SUV -- large 64
SUV -- very large *

Some friends and I were in Townsville a few years ago.. One of them rented a car and drove to Cairns for a couple of days to do some diving. Later he mentioned how nobody seems to speed, and he had been flying past all of them. He also mentioned seeing yellow boxes all over the place on the side of the road. He just assumed they were emergency telephones or something. A couple of months later, a bill from the rental company showed up on his credit card for $3,000US. He called the rental company to ask them about it, and they said the car had been issued 35 speeding tickets on the weekend he had rented the car. It was then that he realized that the yellow boxes were cameras. Expensive lesson.

There are some circumstances where speeding is simply not acceptable, such as residential areas. However, most interstate highways (in the US anyway) are easily traversable at speeds in excess of 100, with a few exceptions. Driving fast is not, in and of itself, a cause of crashes. In Germany, for example, traffic fatalities in 2004 were 7.1 per 100,000. Meanwhile, with our "life saving" speed limits in the US, our traffic fatalities in 2003 (most recent data) were more than double that at 14.66 per 100,000. Clearly it's possible for people to drive fast without a higher number of fatalities.

Driving is an inherently risky activity, and it's impossible to remove all human error without removing humans. I just don't believe that speed limits are much more than an inconvenience and a cycle of tickets funding enforcement and government. If there are more accidents when people are speeding, I believe it's because they haven't had proper training; speed limits don't generally let anyone come close to approaching the limits of their vehicles' abilities, and it gives people the illusion that they can make any turn at any speed and stop on a dime. Furthermore, people tend to focus more when driving faster because they don't get lulled by the relaxing pace of 55MPH. People who are reckless will be reckless regardless of the law; it's just an inconvenience for the rest of us. But that's just my opinion.

Hoorah. I've seen mangled wrecks at 65 mph, 55 mph, 45 mph... if you can't come up with a better argument for a speed limit than "higher speeds are more dangerous" then I've got a Geo Metro and a bunch of 25 MPH speed limit signs to sell you. The argument is also a crock. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 2005/809839.pdf (Figure 5, page 15).

Automobile accident rates and automobile accident death rates have both significantly decreased over the last couple of decades, and during that same time speed limits have generally increased from the good 'ol double nickel. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 2005/809839.pdf (Figure 3, page 12).

If we were willing to accept a certain risk of accident in the past, then why can't we accept that a similar risk of accident now? Instead, we hear how increasing interstate highway speeds from 55 to 65 or 75 mph is going to create roads full of amateur F1 drivers and a general bloodbath. Instead, we hear how its the drivers that are idiots because they don't respect highway speed limits that are demonstrably too low and fail to reflect a rational assessment of risk and benefit. Oddly, a majority of these alleged idiots morph back into so-called reasonable drivers when they are on local roads.

Sadly, all of your arguments are based on anecdotes and fear. Reality and the NHTSA, however, do not agree with you.

Hoorah. I've seen mangled wrecks at 65 mph, 55 mph, 45 mph... if you can't come up with a better argument for a speed limit than "higher speeds are more dangerous" then I've got a Geo Metro and a bunch of 25 MPH speed limit signs to sell you. The argument is also a crock. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 2005/809839.pdf (Figure 5, page 15).

Automobile accident rates and automobile accident death rates have both significantly decreased over the last couple of decades, and during that same time speed limits have generally increased from the good 'ol double nickel. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 2005/809839.pdf (Figure 3, page 12).

If we were willing to accept a certain risk of accident in the past, then why can't we accept that a similar risk of accident now? Instead, we hear how increasing interstate highway speeds from 55 to 65 or 75 mph is going to create roads full of amateur F1 drivers and a general bloodbath. Instead, we hear how its the drivers that are idiots because they don't respect highway speed limits that are demonstrably too low and fail to reflect a rational assessment of risk and benefit. Oddly, a majority of these alleged idiots morph back into so-called reasonable drivers when they are on local roads.

Sadly, all of your arguments are based on anecdotes and fear. Reality and the NHTSA, however, do not agree with you.

Yeah, it's kinda hard to read it when it's slashdotted -it would've been nice if the submitter had included the phase "map showing that he was issued a ticket for going one way down a two way street."

As for speeding, yeah, it's a great revenue source since people are impatient, but it is a highly dangerous activity - KE grows with the square of the speed, American roads are 11 inches compared to the Autobahn's 29 - they're not made to be driven at high speeds by people who don't even know the rules.

The combined effects of the speed limit and speed cameras produced a 91% reduction in accidents in the study area.

Fuel economy is another reason to drive 55.

"I buy groceries once a week...I fill up the front seat and floorboard of my car easily..."

Groceries:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em=6783518401
http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/S earch?storeId=10001&referredURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a rgos.co.uk%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FSea rch%3FstoreId%3D10001&referrer=FG13P&searchTerms=2 852706&params=P6813
http://www.kayslifestyle.co.uk/psnlnet/product.asp x?sid=FMNJA95VFXLQBRN080FB0RF3561EW9J8&brand=KaysL S&prod_id=211251

You'll notice these are all UK sites, we already have an extensive rail network. It's common for people to shop with these.

"cold snowy climate like MN would have problems with a system like this..."

The Taxi2000 system shouldn't be affected much, the running surfaces are enclosed in the track. The UK ATS Ultra system would be affected by heavy snow. Depends on the implementation.

"Would be VERY difficult to evacuate with this system in such small cars."

You say that, but people use automobiles which aren't much bigger. A single Taxi2000 track is designed to take 7,200 vehicles per hour, 21,000 people/hour. It's the equivalent of a 3 lane highway. The performance limiting step with PRT systems is actually the stations, it takes 20-30 seconds to chose a destination and get into the vehicle (180 vehicles/hour/bay).

"All your records you need...family pictures."

You're kidding right. You're the one holding up traffic on the highway with the sofa strapped to the roof of your car?

"Elderly people and their walker/wheelchairs..."

The taxi2000 system is designed to accomodate wheelchairs.

"How would one of these function as an ambulance with all the equipment they need? Firetrucks? Police?"

It wouldn't but I'd expect police stations and hospitals to have stations built in.

"and if you have all these roads and vehicles still...what do you need the new 'transit' system for"

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/verona/im ages/congestion.jpg
http://www.portcult.com/DRIVING-emfhell26.jpg
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/whoweare/img/traffic.jpg
http://www.dorsetcc.gov.uk/media/images/8/j/Ridgew ay2large.jpg
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/news/photos/2002-2/09 3002corridor.jpg

Google has lots more.

Accidental Deaths - United States - 1994-1998 from http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm says 0.7 deaths per 100 million aircraft miles making the shuttle ~1,135 * as safe per passenger mile.

Using 1 death per 167,611,852,800 miles for the shuttle.

As others have mentioned, 1. Amtrak gets funded just barely enough so that big oil, automotive companies, trucking companies, and the aviation industry can point to it and say "see, passenger rail doesn't work!" 2. Amtrak doesn't have straight track of the quality required for high speed rail or the funds (see 1) to get it. What's been missed is that the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) mandates regulations that really don't make any sense. Japanese and European trains can't run on American tracks--issues of proper guage etc. aside because they don't meet our safety standards. According to the East Bay Bicycle Coalition (I hadn't heard of them before either, caveat emptor, blah blah blah), the FRA basically requires American passenger cars to be built like tanks, which apparently means 50-year old tech meets the spec, but modern, well-designed composite structures used in other countries are "unsafe," even though they are superior in actuality.