Slashdot Mirror

Just imagine if cars were sold with this many problems.

Head over to the NTSB (or FHWA, or NHTSA, I forget) site and look up manufacturer recalls for automobiles. While most recalls affect a small number of vehicles, there are many larger recalls that are not widely announced. Here is the list of recalls announced in just one month, March, of 2004. The total number of possible vehicles affected is 5,875,953. Note that the page says only 72% of vehicle owners actually have the recall work done. Looking over the list, it appears 20-30% of the vehicles affected have the possibility for serious problems, with most of the possible events being electrical fires. Again, this is just one month's worth of recalls.

And trotting out that 3000 americans (and some non americans, who are still people) died on September 11th, 2001 doesn't sway me to the big brother argument. I'm not belittling the tragedy of that day, but 3725 people died in 2002 in traffic accidents in Texas alone. Why not clamor to have the government take your car away to make you safer?

So yes, I'm saying that giving the government a little more leeway is not worth it. A lot more than 3000 people have died defending the the constitution and contract we the people have with our government and eroding that contract is a dishonor to them and the foundations the United States is built on.

This is just like so-called open container laws. It is already illegal to drive drunk. But, the very act of having an open bottle of booze in my car is illegal. Why? By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it. But then I'm breaking an already existing law!!!

How about we just start enforcing the laws we already have before we start writing new ones.

...plants could simply use the excess electrical capacity at night...

This is known as peak shaving.

Really? That's funny, because all the research I've read over the years and up to today has indicated that diesel engines are dirtier than gasoline.

Where are you getting your info? If I had ever heard that diesel engines ran more cleanly I would be all over it, but as far as I can tell you are making this claim up out of thin air.

Cheers.

I am so sick of this war on terrorism. We're wasting 100s of billions of taxpayer money and for what? Reduced civil rights (I just can't believe that in America, a citizen can now be held without being charged and without contact with the outside world - is this a nightmare?), toppling two legitimate goverments of other countries (Ok, the Taliban didn't hand over Osama on a silver platter so they became a sacrifical pig with the blessing of the world), 1000s of innocents dying (in said aforementioned two countries) ...

We've made our point, gotten our revenge, and wiped out a significant part of the major terrorism networks in the process. Isn't it enough already? But, if we're going to continue to spend this money to protect lives, why not make it more productive?

(I know, I'm arguing that the war on terrorism has not saved all that many lives. While 'what if' alternate historial outcomes are unknowable, we can look to the past for some indication. So how often has the US been subject to externally-originated acts of terrorism? And how many have died in them total? Not all that many, compared to other forms of premature death. Sure, the deaths in 911 were tragic and unforgiveable, but so are any other premature deaths, IMHO (traffic deaths, murder victims, etc.). Look at the 911 hijackers - they're attempts to get pilot training were almost comical - it's really amazing they succeeded at their goal. And look how long they prepared. My point here is that I don't think the terrorists are capable of sustained mass production terrorism. [I'm talking international terrorism against the US as opposed to the Palestinians, who are quite good at mass production terrorism])

As for alternatives to spending our taxmoney, just one example:

Every year over 42K people lose their lives in traffic accidents in the US. That's what, 16 times the number of deaths in 911? And it happens every year. Imagine how many lives would be saved if 100 billion per year was plowed into traffic safety (such as pedestrian walks over or under dangerous intersections, air bags that don't kill toddlers, etc.).

Just my 0.02.

Why doesn't Microsoft release security patches to prevent obvious security problems?

Because doing business that way costs money.

Reacting may cost more than proactive solutions, but without management buy-in on the front, you have no way of convincing the people with the money (management) to pay up for the 'extra' work.

Look at the airline industry in the United States of America. The airplane construction business opperates on the principle that ANo Safety Feature will be implemented until a disaster of cost equal to that of implementation happens. Fortunately, a lot of safety features come standard on modern aircraft - like a trained pilot.

People in the airline industry blame this in razor thin margins. The margins for Microsoft and many other major industry dominators are huge. Yet they follow the same 'dark path.' There is no excuse, but they continue to fail at doing the Right Thing.

Google has been doing the Right Thing for a lot of projects. And, now that they have posted their principles, we can see why.

When you have ideology that tells you to do the Right Thing, there is automatic buy-in by management. (Otherwise it is better to get new managment who will toe the line.)

Of course, this is complete nonsense. When my wife was rear-ended in my pickup, my bumper and rear quarter panel were mildly dented. The other guy's vehicle had to be towed away.

Our Suburban weighs 7000 lbs. If I get in a wreck with a hybrid, whose vehicle is going to be crushed like a grape? Who's going to end up in the hospital?

Still not convinced? Then look here, where you can find that the rate for driver fatalities per billion miles for large pickups is 4.07; the rate for large SUVs (like the Suburban) is 3.79. The rate for your average aluminum can hybrid vehicle - surely a small vehicle - simply can't compare.

There are risks associated with driving anything at highway speeds. It so happens that for the rare case of rollovers, SUVs may be more dangerous - but overall, big SUVs like the Suburban and big pickups like mine are among the safest vehicles on the road.

The diesel in the VW is proven technology, but I was also worried about how the hybrids would be in an accident.

Other hybrids: all part of the Prius gets 5 stars on front impacts. Civic Hybrid would be no different from regular Civics.

Then came "integrated bumpers" and "bumperless cars". Those things can be totalled at very low speeds. Damages in minor collisions soared.

Here's the Institute for Highway Safety on the "$3000 light replacement" issue. They write: "The Institute's continuing series of 5 mph bumper tests show that today's flimsy bumpers can result in substantial and expensive damage to vehicle lighting systems. For example, in March of this year the Institute released results of front-into-angle-barrier tests of several new models. In the tests, the housings for the headlights on both the Acura RL and Infiniti Q45 broke and had to be replaced. Largely because of the cost of the headlamp assembly, the damage to the Q45 in the angle-barrier impact totaled $2,661." That's probably the source of the "$3000" figure.

The lack of a tough bumper standard coupled with the crashworthyness requirement means that the car's crumple zones crumple in minor collisions. Hence the big repair bills.

The only way that we can eliminate "bad drivers" is to go to totally automated vehicles. I will be the first to admit that we are no where near ready for that kind of a system, however, projects like the one in the article are the first baby steps in setting up the infrastructure that will be necessary for such a system. There is a definate 'chicken and egg' problem with such a system. Vehicle manufacturers will not be able to implement a system without a smart infrastructure, and traffic and civil engineers can not install a smart infrastructure overnight, due to cost, design, and available technology issues. Getting to an efficient, safe, and publicly acceptable system will require a lot of bootstrapping, or implementing basic systems to enable the implementation of more advanced systems that will eventually let us develop the final system we need.

Eventually we will see restricted access lanes that only properly equipped vehicles can use (probably large trucks only at first and only in the most congested urban regions). Similar to current High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, these lanes will run much faster and less congested than the 'normal' lanes beside them. This will encourage the general public to purchase the technology and increase the market penetration. As more and more vehicles have the technology available that will encourage the engineers and politicians to install more lane miles of automated highways. Eventually the cycle will move into a strong positive reinforcement system and we can see fantastic improvements in the efficiency of our road system.

As long as human beings are allowed to operate thier vehicles independantly there will be property damage, injuries, and deaths at a continued horrific rate. Even the best drivers can have a bad day, or a bad moment, when they are distracted, let alone all the fools who will get in a car impared, or who are just poor drivers to begin with and don't even realize it. There are those who will reply, I'm sure, something along the lines of, "I'm never gonna trust my life to something that will BSOD and kill me." My response to that is, that every day you get in a car you are trusting your life to the million other drivers you share the road with who are far more likely to 'fail' in an unsafe manner than even the worst system that Microsoft could come up with. If we work hard and implement a 'fail-safe' system (No, this is not a system that can't fail, no such thing. It means that when the system fails it fails into a 'safe' mode.) then we can not help but tremendously reduce the amount of damage being caused on our roads today. Even if an automated system resulted in 100 deaths per day in the U.S., we would still be better off than the most recent national traffic statistics. Of course, that would lead to the liability issues, which are the real thing that will probably kill this type of system.

Okay, it's not vehicles talking to each other, it's about vehicles using wifi to talk to stoplights, stopsigns and other infrastructure. But it's just a small step from that to vehicles communicating among themselves and trying to coordinate.

Some highlights:
"The in vehicle system would utilize Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), High Accuracy Nationwide Differential GPS (HANDGPS), and a handheld Linux based computer to acquire and analyze the infrastructure warnings to alert drivers."

"The interface and data analysis programs would be copyrighted with the Free Software Foundation copyleft statement"

This is also why the government keeps up the Interstate highways. In theory, in the state of war on the US mainland, the Army could easily control any stretch of Interstate highway so that vital convoys could have a fast and trafic-free mostly-direct path from one metro area to another.

Unfortunately it misses 5 state capitals:
The five State capitals not directly served by the Interstate System are Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri; Carson City, Nevada; and Pierre, South Dakota.

This is from the Interstate Highway site of the Federal Government.

I've got these behind my house Works wonders.

I find it hard to understand that PI equals 3.

Yeah, you're trolling, but still...

For you, Pi is a value that is easily deduced from observation and from your education.

3000 years ago, observation was difficult and education was rare. And IIRC, the decimal number system would not have been the standard -- more like halves, quarters, and eighths. For those occasions requiring knowlege of the ratio of a diameter to a circumference, "3" is useful. "3 and an eighth" would be more accurate but more difficult, and "3.14" would likely be outside the layman's grasp.

But I respect your honesty about your lack of faith in a higher power. What irritates me are those who profess their faith (often loudly), but find it threatened by something as simple as a random numeric configuration.

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

I stand by the statement that nobody will be specficially growing biomass for fuel conversion. You are completely correct, most energy we have used was from plant matter: heck, the average person is running at about 120W based completely on plant and animal sources (2500kCal/24hr). That is a LOT of energy. However, the average CAR uses something like 120kW (~162HP) src Thats a lot of bio-fuel per second.
Lets have some fun:
If we assume that you have your numbers above (2.5% efficient conversion of an average of 400W/m^2) and we use the average car then that 10W per meter squared gives us a requirement of ???
With an average commute distance of about 10 miles (real is more like 13 ref) . I'll assume that means that the average commuter burns about a gallon of gas per day, 5 days a week.
A gallon of gas has an energy content of about 118MJ (Ethanol has about 80MJ) ref So we need
5*5*118MJ ~= 2.95E9_J per week.
In order to produce this in 7 days (allow production but not use during the weekend) we need to average
2.95E9_J/(7 days) ~= 4.88kW per car
which comes to a total area of
4880W/(10W/m^2) = 488m^2
This represents a patch of plant life about 25 meters on a side. Doesn't seem too bad, I suppose. The average family needs about a football field out on the ocean in order to drive to work everyday.
However, I am going to repeat that accounting in brief using the numbers I believe to be accurate: that is 0.1% efficient transformation of solar energy into ethanol (for why, read my the upper reaches of this thread).
So, 0.001*400W/m^2 = 0.4W/m^2. Lets call it 0.5, then my earlier calcs become
4880W*(2m^2/W) = 9760m^2
Which is a plot damned near 100m on a side. Now, what is the value of the fuel? Well, that would come to the profit to the seller of 5 gallons of fuel. Given that gas goes for about something like a dollar a gallon, wholesale, you are requiring some entity to manage a crap load of these floating plant boxes for
$5*10/7days = $7.14/day/km^2
So for less than 10 bucks per square kilometer per day! Or, with the 10W per meter squared figure:
25m*40 = 1km; 5$*40 = $200/km^2/7days
= $28.5 per day.
And I'd bet a lot that even MY number is about 10 times higher than is realistic. Hell, we haven't even factored in litigation: and I think we can be certain that if a company or government offered to cover a few million square km of ocean with plant boxes, there would be PLENTY of litigation.

Check out nhtsa stats on hp and fuel consumption of passenger cars over the last 25 years. From 1985 - 2001 the average fuel economy has not changed from 27.5 mpg. Yet the hp ratings have gone from 109 to a peak of 167 over the same time frame. Perhaps car companies should stop increasing our cars horsepower and start increasing our mpg. I'm assuming they are doing this to give more "performance" yet sensed performance is less a product of hp and more a product of torque.
If you know anything about AC/DC motors, it's that they develop their maximum torque at _any_ rpm. That's why the new Prius feels like it has a lot of power, when really it only has 67hp from the electric motor, the sensation that pushes you to the back of your seat is coming from the 295 lb-ft of torque from the AC motor. What I'm getting at is, a solar, hybrid, or fuel cell car does not need to produce 250 hp to fell like todays cars, 70 - 100hp is much more realistic.

Not sure what to call disinformation that tries to counter FUD, but there should be a word for it. The original poster is correct about short people, even those wearing seat belts, being at risk with air-bags. Children under twelve are at risk from air bags because of their height; the bag can smack them in the face. (see here: nhtsa.dot.gov). My wife the pediatrician confirms this info.

That said, I want a car with ABS and air-bags, too. :-)

Regards, Jeff Cagle

NHTSA data also say that drunk driving accidents kill 17,000 people per year, cause 513,000 injuries per year, and cost $114 billion per year. NHTSA

A $500 gadget that prevents a drunk driver from starting the car would have far better bang for the buck.

• Amtrak Helps DEA Hunt Drug Couriers, Albuquerque Journal, April 11, 2001. (Ed.: link broken)
• Amtrak shares passenger info with DEA for drug prosecutions, Declan
  McCullagh's politechbot.com, April 11, 2001.
• Your Rights Online: Keeping DEA In The Loop About Amtrak Travelers, Slashdot, April 15, 2001.
• Amtrak 'Sharing' Information With D.E.A., New York Times, April 15, 2001 (registration required).

Wrong and wrong(MS Word documents).

Maglev's are quieter than steel wheel/steel rail trains at similar speeds, but they most certainly do generate significant amounts of noise and vibration, especially at speeds over 180mph.

Wrong and wrong(MS Word documents).

Maglev's are quieter than steel wheel/steel rail trains at similar speeds, but they most certainly do generate significant amounts of noise and vibration, especially at speeds over 180mph.

One important thing you've touched on is the character of terrorism; it's an information/propaganda war designed to use the weaknesses (and strengths) of the mass media against the populace to make them more fearful than they rationally should be.

42,116 people died in car accidents in the U.S. in 2001 and the death rate was 14 per 100,000 (see National Highway & Traffic Safety Administration). For comparison the national murder rate is only 5.5 per 100,000. And more people died in car crashes in California in 2001 than died on 9/11. Yet this doesn't make the news because it isn't dramatic enough is it?

So you're right. In addition, it's utterly pointless to put the whole country on the same level of alert. I don't think the terrorists have any targets in Peoria, Illinois. I suppose they have to make the alert national to prevent terrorists from figuring out whether the feds are onto them.

Mark my words, this is the beginning of the end for the United States. We are becoming a culture of spoon-fed MTV kids who whine about being entitled to only the best things in life and who have ADD and pay for everything with credit cards. Ironically, in our attempt to "defeat" the terrorists in an unwinnable war, we have accomplished what the terrorists wanted in the first place: the partial destabilization of our country. In combination with the rise of the MTV culture, this illness of America is likely terminal.

The motor vehicle mortality rates are pretty much the same in the US and Europe, with the US being slightly safer.

Overall EU fatality rate for 1999 is 15.8 per billion vehicle km.

Overall US fatality rate for 1999 (PDF file) is 1.5 per 100 million vehicle miles, or 9.3 per billion km. That makes the US vehicle fatality rate lower than all the EU nations except the UK and Sweden.

Personally, I'd attribute the difference to the greater density and complexity of European roadways (US roads tend to be laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid) before blaming one for having worse drivers than the other. I'd also suggest you resist the urge to make up facts in your desire to bash the US. Given the above statistics, someone using the flawed reasoning you just did would conclude that using cell phones, GPS, watching TV, shaving, or being intoxicated while driving are actually attributes of safer drivers.

If I remember correctly, the cited intersection does not use DSCR, it simply tracks incoming cars and warns if it thinks someone may get hit. I think it's a high speed rural highway intersection. I've seen presentations on it but it's been a while.

Ok, I went and checked. The one I'm thinking of was this one (PDF, 322k) which was actually installed on a public road. The cited intersection was a demo this past summer at a DOT research facility in McLean. Here are some movies of the different demos in action.

If I remember correctly, the cited intersection does not use DSCR, it simply tracks incoming cars and warns if it thinks someone may get hit. I think it's a high speed rural highway intersection. I've seen presentations on it but it's been a while.

Ok, I went and checked. The one I'm thinking of was this one (PDF, 322k) which was actually installed on a public road. The cited intersection was a demo this past summer at a DOT research facility in McLean. Here are some movies of the different demos in action.

What was the number one cause of unatural death?

Over 42k traffic fatalities in 2002.
Compare with 3k fatalities in the WTC attack.

cheers- raga

According to http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permi tted_Prohibited.doc, you cannot take lighter fluid or other flammable liquid fuel on a plane either in carry-on or checked luggage. ec

This is happening with us driving the safest and most expensive cars ever made.

How did this happen? Everyone has guesses. Some blame SUVs. My guess is driving behavior has changed. To many of us, driving is no longer transportation, but a game. In my opinion, too many people now derive their self-esteem from beating other people on the road.

Just watch car ads on television. Why is it 99% of car ads have to show the disclaimer "Profession Driver On Closed Course - Do Not Attempt." The driver is doing two, three times the speed limit. These ads are shown because they work. They appeal to the Speed Racer in all of us. You think, "With the new Pontiac 6000SUX, that damned guy in the Toyota truck who aces me out every day on the way to work no longer has a chance."

Furthermore, airbags and mandatory insurance gives rise to what I call "Superman Syndrome." Why the hell should a guy be careful when he is not paying for his accidents and he doesn't have to worry about getting hurt. True -- to the extent that he doesn't get into a really big accident, which is happening more and more these days.

And if they made the drinking age 75 it would drop even more. What makes 21 such a better choice? Many studies reference 25 as a cutoff. You can not seperate out the death rate statistics of raising the drinking age because at the same time cars have got safer, roads have extra safety features, seat belt use is way up, and in many places the speed limits have been lowered all in the same 20 year period. Thankfully through an effort on many sides, the death rate among many groups is going down but how can any one group take the credit for the total %. How can you break the numbers down?

Here are some interesting statistics to chew on.

Here says:
Juveniles arrested for DUI were disproportionately male (84 percent) and white (91 percent).

Damn, maybe the law should allow non white males under 18 to drink.

Here says:
Declines in DUI arrest rates have occurred for every age group. Of particular note is the decrease in DUI arrest rates for those under the age of 21 compared to their rates of DUI arrest in the early 1980's when States had not adopted a uniform drinking age. In 1980 persons between 16 and 20 years old accounted for 10 percent of licensed drivers but 15 percent of DUI arrestees. In 1996, this age group accounted for 7 percent of drivers and 8 percent of DUI arrestees.

Considering the drinking age in 1980 and 1996 was also 2l in all but a few areas but yet the % goes way down. Law may have been a factor but what about the other groups decline? What ever caused those declines probably was a factor in the underage group too.

I am not claiming the law has no effect but anyone or any organization for or against some idea can interpet statistics and just about "prove" anything. Researches have determined that 78% of all statistics were made up, shortly after that another firm came up with 79%.

Just a few links to underline point one and refute point 2

Federal Regs There are also local state ones for ALL motor vehicles. All the way from a motor cycle to a 18 wheeler.

a gps tracking system

I personally do not have a problem with these systems. If your driving like an ass I usually WISH a cop would be nearby to see it.

You are speaking with confidence, but you are just plain wrong.

IEEE standards for the operational characteristics of the black box recorders used in auto manufactuering are still being hashed out. The duration of time that different boxes record for, whether they record after an accident (some do) and the number of different events (throttle position, brake position, seat belt buckles engaged, vehicle yaw, time of airbag deployment, etc) vary from box to box.

That's only the beginning. Consider the collection of patents that are of interest to the NHTSA. These include vehicle-mounted audio and video recorders.

I find it amusing how people who would jump out of their skin at the Orwellian aspects of black boxes in their vehicles that record all the things that these little devices ultimately will record have little problem with them recording just a few things now.

El Camino Real is "The King's Road". There are actually two El Camino Real's - one in California and one in Texas. They are esentially the first interstate roadways in the New World. In both cases, they were built to link a series Spannish missions.

hmm, how very wrong and ignorant you are. If you did a little investigation instead of some near-sighted bigotry you would find that there have been inventions made by black men and women. A quick search shows that a black man invented the stopsign .

Imagine this comment coming from a white man, and then imagine this same white man dragging you into the street and beating some sense into you if I heard you in person...
It is racism and bigotry that is leading this world to conflict and distruction. And you are on the losing team..

I was preparing to write a proposal for my state representative. Now I can drop it and concentrate on my lane splitting legalization bill.

Federal taxes are $0.184/gallon and state taxes average $0.1929/gallon. (See here.) So the figure's more like 20-25%, unless you are getting your gas for $0.63/gallon.

Along the same lines, I also think the government should send you an income tax bill once a month, and everyone should be writing a big check equivalent to 3-4 months salary to pay it.

Well, your federal income tax does appear on your (weekly, biweekly, monthly) pay stub. So it's not like it's a state secret.

You do know that most SUV deaths are passengers of SUVs, not the people they hit.

Running a quick check on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (HTML version here) shows that in multiple-vehicle accidents, cars had a 0.047% fatality rate, versus 0.021% (less than half!) for SUVs. Unfortunately the report doesn't track the class of the "other" cars in any given collision, but I suspect that in SUV-vs.-passenger car collisions, the statistics get even worse for the cars.

One other minor quibble:

Lower bumper, which makes rollovers less likely since it will hit the bumper of the other car, not go over the other car.

The Guardian comes with a unibody steel frame, a stronger, crumple-resistant roof, seat belts that cinch automatically in a rollover, lower bumpers to protect other drivers in a crash, and a seat-belt reminder that emits a noise until all passengers are belted.

The taxes currently leveled on gas could more than pay for the road and highway contruction budget of the US, were they directly tied to such. The US uses around 8000 Mbbl/Day of gasoline, which is taxed at a mean rate of $0.42 a gallon. This yields a tax credit of $51 billion. The FHA only uses a budget of around $30 billion to maintain those roads, which provides the bulk of highway spending. The rest of state spending easily fits under what is left of the $51 billion. Hence, there is no "hidden" cost of automobile usage, save that gasoline taxes do not directly pay into the funds of those institutions that maintain the roads.

which simply don't happen in smaller cars

What type of stupidity is that. Of course they do. It may be less common than SUV's nowadays but they still happen. Take a look at these Numbers. Obviously they aren't percentages but they still show that rollovers do occur. A rollover can be caused by more than just high center of gravity. Road conditions, tire pressure, driver reaction, collisions, all can lead to rollovers.

And your example is so silly. Side impact collisions without side curtain airbags will always be more dangerous to the person who is hit in the side. Why do you think they are always talking about side impace studies.

...gripping the levers of power without ever having had to personally defend those powers with their lives in combat.

President Bush: Texas ANG F-102 pilot (arguable)
Sec of State Powell: Chairman, JCoS
Vice Pres Chaney: Sec of Defense
Tom Ridge, Sec. Homeland Security: Army infantry, Vietnam
Norman Mineta, Sec. Transportation: Army Intelligence
Senate: 35 members with military experience.
House: 122 members with military experience.

Shall I go on?

May we inquire as to your military experience?

Why don't they have cars that drive themselves on the interstate? Actually, 5 or 6 years ago there was a pilot program where they deployed magnets in 13 miles of California freeway and equipped Buicks (yeah... go figure...) to do the whole automated driving thing. But that never got any farther than those 13 miles, as far as I know. Why?

Well, I'd have to guess it's a similar reason why we never converted to the Metric system--infrastructure problems. Simply put, there are far too many miles of highway (46,000-somthing at last count), far too many sensors per mile, and far too few tax dollars to spend on the project. It was the same thing with Metric in the 70s--the government said we'd be metric in five years, only to find out the hard way that there were too many miles of freeway, too many die changes, too much opposition from corporations... you get the idea.

When I get some extra money, I'm planning on setting up a used laptop in my vehicle. I'll use it with GPS, to obtain traffic updates, and as an MP3 player, DVD player, and for various other things. I also may hook up cameras inside and outside the car and a mic on the inside. If the car's ever stolen, I can have that information uploaded to a server. You can also bet, though, that I'll be figuring out a way of erasing that information if the car is in an accident.

Well, traffic accidents killed about 41,000 people and injured about 3.2 million more. Many of these accidents could have been prevented, and the police are charged with preventing crime, as well as prosecuting it.

So I don't really mind that police spend more time on traffic enforcement than on identity theft investigations. Yes, identity theft costs money, but some things are more important than money.

Which is why recalls do get issued in many cases.

There's a very interesting report on HOV lane effectiveness called Executive Report - Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements: El Monte Busway Case Study where they did change the requirements for the HOV lane, and monitored the results.

Two things jumped out at me -

• Although there were initial improvements in traffic throughput, that was lost after the first month.
• Buses were significantly negatively impacted.

So, if Seattle were to get rid of the HOV lanes, and the results from this study hold, instead of everyone except HOV vehicles (including buses) being stuck in bad traffic, what would happen is that everyone, including HOV vehicles, would be stuck in bad traffic.