Slashdot Mirror

Basically, their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow, giving you ample time to know that the green period ends.

A pre-yellow warning phase also causes motorists to increase speed inappropriately, which is why the United States has not adopted a pre-yellow vehicular phase.

The real root of the problem is that people are either unwilling or unable to live within a short distance to their workplace. Many large cities were not designed to handle the volume of commuters that we have had for at least 20 years. People live in the suburbs (for a variety of reasons; some due to economics, others due to a desire to live in areas with lower population density), and commute to the city centers to work.

The highway system in the United States is rather unusual. Most countries would design a system to maximize the utility. Lots of high density living near high density employment plus walking, cycling and mass transit. Then minimizing problems like traffic jams by using turnabouts and parallel paths. Instead, the United States highway system was built for the military instead. It was created by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627).

Originally this system got raw material from one side of the country to another to manufacture planes, guns, ammo and ships. It was also envisioned as a great lever on the economy. But the immediate social cost of this high-speed bypass was destroying little towns that grew up on existing roads like Highway 66, a road that already crossed the entire country.

But the system was funded at a time when Nuclear War was the next big thing just around the corner. One intention or clear effect is spreading living out into the new suburbs and exurbs to reduce the impact of a nuclear strike on the core of a city. In fact the roads around every major city aren't designed to avoid traffic jams but instead to ensure:

the importance of the Interstate System to evacuation of cities in time of national emergency.

-- the Clay Commission.

This was the time when everyone was told on the brand new TVs that success means 'a steady job, a home out of town, a car, two kids and husband+wife.' That is when they weren't practicing duck and cover.

Where these yahoos intended to put these people fleeting the burning inner cities during war? The imaginary copious amounts of farmland that planners though should be able to support them. Yes, this was during a time when farming was already well on it's way to consolidating into agribusiness.

No, people didn't decide that suddenly the suburbs were the peak of civilization (even if we parody that in the movies.) The citizens of the United States bought a big pile of propaganda. The sad fact is that the people who wrote that propaganda actually believed it was to help them.

The problem can only be solved by reducing the need for people to commute. There are a lot of ways to do this:

Tell that to three generations of management that believe in face-to-face time. Google and other Stack-ranking "Internet Native" companies design their HR system to terminate remote workers or flex workers as fast as they can hire them. Sixty years of white flight, black flight, Mexican-ization, gentrification, urban blights, drug wars, gang wars, the real estate collapse and protectionist nimby laws the problems haven't been solved by staying at home. In places like Irving, California, that are built on the Internet, things got much worse. The demographics keep changing but the work culture and laws didn't.

The real root of the problem is that people are either unwilling or unable to live within a short distance to their workplace. Many large cities were not designed to handle the volume of commuters that we have had for at least 20 years. People live in the suburbs (for a variety of reasons; some due to economics, others due to a desire to live in areas with lower population density), and commute to the city centers to work.

The highway system in the United States is rather unusual. Most countries would design a system to maximize the utility. Lots of high density living near high density employment plus walking, cycling and mass transit. Then minimizing problems like traffic jams by using turnabouts and parallel paths. Instead, the United States highway system was built for the military instead. It was created by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627).

Originally this system got raw material from one side of the country to another to manufacture planes, guns, ammo and ships. It was also envisioned as a great lever on the economy. But the immediate social cost of this high-speed bypass was destroying little towns that grew up on existing roads like Highway 66, a road that already crossed the entire country.

But the system was funded at a time when Nuclear War was the next big thing just around the corner. One intention or clear effect is spreading living out into the new suburbs and exurbs to reduce the impact of a nuclear strike on the core of a city. In fact the roads around every major city aren't designed to avoid traffic jams but instead to ensure:

the importance of the Interstate System to evacuation of cities in time of national emergency.

-- the Clay Commission.

This was the time when everyone was told on the brand new TVs that success means 'a steady job, a home out of town, a car, two kids and husband+wife.' That is when they weren't practicing duck and cover.

Where these yahoos intended to put these people fleeting the burning inner cities during war? The imaginary copious amounts of farmland that planners though should be able to support them. Yes, this was during a time when farming was already well on it's way to consolidating into agribusiness.

No, people didn't decide that suddenly the suburbs were the peak of civilization (even if we parody that in the movies.) The citizens of the United States bought a big pile of propaganda. The sad fact is that the people who wrote that propaganda actually believed it was to help them.

The problem can only be solved by reducing the need for people to commute. There are a lot of ways to do this:

Tell that to three generations of management that believe in face-to-face time. Google and other Stack-ranking "Internet Native" companies design their HR system to terminate remote workers or flex workers as fast as they can hire them. Sixty years of white flight, black flight, Mexican-ization, gentrification, urban blights, drug wars, gang wars, the real estate collapse and protectionist nimby laws the problems haven't been solved by staying at home. In places like Irving, California, that are built on the Internet, things got much worse. The demographics keep changing but the work culture and laws didn't.

Passenger miles are increasing. And planes are getting hard to buy. Prices go up and they put more people on a plane. Not really unexpected!

Roughly.
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/s...

If President Trump really wants to create American jobs I can think of a trillion's worth of core infrastructure projects that are "shovel ready".

ASCE 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure[Spoiler: It's a D.]

It’s Time to Fix America’s Infrastructure. Here’s Where to Start

New USDOT Report on Highway, Transit Conditions Reveals America’s $926 Billion Infrastructure Investment Need

I'm all for electric vehicles, but the US has much lower population density.

Danger, danger, Will Robinson, danger, danger!

You're making an assumption about Americans, based on math. But we don't live on 1/10th of a square mile parcels, now do you.

An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area. Unless they become cheap enough that it can be a second or even third household vehicle, it's simply not feasible for a lot of Americans.

Yeah, how many is a lot? A million sounds like a lot of people to me. But that'd mean there are 297 million for whom it might be feasible.

You do not have exact numbers to decide how many Americans could satisfy their daily lives with an electric vehicle, or even a bicycle. You have shown no research, and presented no examination.

But consider this, if the average American driver ends up driving around 37 miles a day, don't you think that means there are a lot of people who COULD use an electric car?

Think, omnichad, think.

Trains might not be obsolete now, but they will be before they could ever be widespread in the US.

Rail is already widespread in the US.

Sorry, Kohath, you'll have to leave the 17th century sooner or later.

Irony, captcha is grandpa.

According to NHTSA, in 2014 (the latest year for which they show data) nearly five thousand pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles in the US.

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

I know that you meant "run over on purpose by a truck", but let's keep the final result in focus.

Computers/automation/robotics have been replacing workers of all stripes including white collar workers since the ATM was introduced in 1967. Every place I have ever worked has had internal and external software that replaces white collar workers (where you used to need 10 people now you need 2).

The reality is that the economy is limited by a scarcity of labor when government doesn't interfere (the economy is essentially the sum of every worker work multiplied by their efficiency as valued by the economy in dollars). As people are freed from jobs that are highly repetitive, there are always more complex, less repetitive jobs out there because the consumer is always looking for the next big thing to improve their lives/increase their free time/reduce their work load. Entire multi billion dollar industries have been created after the introduction of the ATM and will continue to be created. Competition will always push prices down to equilibrium with demand, and I predict now that when fast food restaurants are completely automated with one or two highly skilled technicians (who can make $45k a year btw) running things, prices will drop to levels near what you would pay to make the food at home, order accuracy will be higher, and food borne illness will be unheard of (48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die every year from food borne illness.) Food handling automation was inevitable, the minimum wage hike is just a catalyst to make it happen a little sooner. When driving is automated, traffic will be much lighter, people will not have to own their own cars to travel anywhere; pollution will go down due to the elimination of bad driving habits, ride sharing and reduced traffic. Traffic fatalities, one of the top causes of death in ages 18-25 (over 40,000 per year in total) will be a thing of the past. There will still be fatalities, but probably reduced by 100x or so in the first 10 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneb...
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g...

The biggest mistake we could make as a country is to go the way of the universal basic income. If we get to a point where there are 10x more job seekers than jobs, then we can revisit the issue, but right now there are about 5.5 million job openings in the US and there would probably be 4x that if the government wasn't actively chasing businesses to Asia. Current real unemployment is about 6% so 9.6 million. When US companies bring back $2.1T this year and the health insurance boondogle is fixed (universal annual HSAs, nationwide competition, standardization of policies; identical to what was done by Republicans to life insurance in the 1990s which reduced the costs by 60%), the job market will very likely explode. Economists understand this and that is part of why the DOW is up 1200 points since the election. The Obama economy was of his own making after the first 2 years due to the ACA and excessive regulation, and, like the Carter economy, it will be unleashed with the next administration.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03...
https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

First step will be modifying the current hours of service regulations. I envision the driver doing the pickup, getting the rig onto the highway, then sleeping in back while the truck self-drives overnight. Wake up the next day to fuel up, then bring it in to the next warehouse.

Even the summary admits that this won't accomplish much of anything:

which officials say could prevent tens of thousands of crashes each year.

Out of more than 6 million accidents per year in the US. So maybe, if all goes well, this could lead to a 1% reduction in accidents, well under the year-to-year variation in accident statistics. Their best case scenario is actually deep in the noise.

Maybe they should be pissed at the right people. The government that adds regulations and taxes on top of regulations and taxes. In 2017 the new HOS (Hours Of Service) laws are coming into effect in the USA. So it will become much more expensive to have a person driving a truck on the highway. The equipment costs skyrocket for the truck owners and at the same time the driving costs will as well with fewer driving hours. All this so that the government can control and oppress people some more. Of course this will accelerate the switch from long haul drivers to automated highway driving.

http://www.ccjdigital.com/ooid...

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hour...

http://www.overdriveonline.com...

http://www.trucknews.com/featu...

Of course Canada takes every 'great' American idea and parrots it http://www.trucknews.com/trans...

So AFAIC the real culprits for faster automation of highway drivers are found in the government.

Too optimistic. The accident rate for trucks is very low, about 0.15 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled (source: here). We will need a lot of trucks and a lot of time on that 35 mile stretch. Quick calculations, at 1000 trucks per day, 24/7, this will take 100 years.

'The impact of the crash disintegrated the car, leaving a debris field over 150 yards long.' - that is a very, very high speed impact.
http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/P... - is not clear as to numbers - perhaps around 10% of frontal impacts, and more high speed impacts - lead to fires in conventional vehicles.

Plus - you can't disconnect crash safety, and post crash performance. If I have a car that never catches fire, but always kills the occupants, it's not better than one that catches fire, and the occupants rarely die.

Transport contributes to about a quarter of our CO2 emissions and personal transport accounts for maybe 63% of that as far as I can tell. So cars are not the cause of nor the solution to climate change. After cars, what next? Agriculture contributes a lot, I suppose you'd argue they should grow their own food. Power is another big contributor, so they should go without power.

You and I both know that some activists HAVE probably "put their money where their mouth is" and surprisingly climate change isn't solved. They're ignored as whackos which they are, and they lack any power to actually do more than pat themselves on the back. Real solutions will require more than voluntary personal lifestyle changes.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:

In general, the weighted (by miles traveled in trip) occupancy rates of personal vehicle trips in the nation is 1.6 persons per vehicle mile

So yeah, the infotainment system is for the driver.

About 61% nationally of fatal crashes involve only one vehicle. The NHTSA says here that in about 70% of fatal single-vehicle crashes, the automobile ran off of the road. This is low-hanging fruit for computer driving to achieve a safety improvement.

98% acceptance? Probably 40 years from the first deployment of true autonomous systems. The rich and businesses go first. Just as luxury cars and long-haul trucks have always been the first to get almost any safety feature.

Samsung has sold millions of these things. Three of them have caught fire. That makes the odds of a device catching fire less than 1 in 1,000,000. Business Insider says that 17 cars catch fire every hour. Where are the cries for recalling cars?

I'm going to keep a copy of your post for safe keeping. This "what about y" device is constantly being invoked as justification for everything from mass surveillance to red rum so often in so many different contexts it usually makes me cringe/sigh Al Gore style whenever I encounter it.

Boldly inquiring about cries for recalling products that catch on fire takes it to a whole new level.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://q13fox.com/2016/09/30/s...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business...

http://www.techtimes.com/artic...

http://jalopnik.com/5935974/fi...

http://www.autonews.com/articl...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

http://www.popularmechanics.co...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.streetdirectory.com...

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2...

If you want to hear cries from victims themselves click keywords and enter fire. http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/o...

The fact is, hundreds of thousands of people are navigating one way streets correctly every day.

So? That's not the only relevant statistic. There are several. We want to know how many times people turn the wrong way down a one-way street, and we want to know how many times there is a collision, and how many of those collisions are fatal. We need to know at least these three things to make a sensible evaluation of the vehicle's relative performance.

On average, about 360 lives are lost each year in about 260 fatal wrong-way collisions. The number of fatal wrong-way collisions has been essentially unchanged for the 6 years of data analyzed. [2004-2009]

So you see, human drivers actually do get this wrong, and with fatal consequences. So we really do need to know a bit more than that this vehicle made a wrong turn, assuming that this was indeed a self-driving vehicle in a self-driving mode. Most fatal wrong-way accidents are caused by alcohol. That's not going to be a problem for a self-driving car. If it sees an oncoming vehicle, it's going to stop.

I realize that it is of course tempting to say "but that's highway incidents!" but oh no, that's just where the fatalities are. For example, in Tampa 700 wrong-way incidents ... occurred on local streets in 2014 alone. And keep in mind, this is only incidents which required police involvement. It's probably safe to assume that even more people than that actually turned the wrong way down one-way streets, since studies ... show the vast majority of wrong-way drivers correct their mistakes before causing a crash by simply turning around and heading in the right direction.

TL;DR: Calm down there, me laddo. It's way too soon to call this one.

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place.

Accident rates may go up (or stay the same) but death rates go down.
The increase in accidents is less dangerous relatively slow speed rear end collisions, while
side on higher speed, and so more deadly, rates go down.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/public...

The major defect in his argument is generational: we're all used to driving, to owning, and otherwise to just having our own private car.

Perhaps that explains my perspective, since I grew up raised by a single parent who never owned a car. I've been driving since I was sixteen, though.

That generation will likely abandon the costs, risks, and inconvenience of driving in favor of chartering self-driving cars.

I agree. However...

Why spend $28,000 every 5 years

Every 11 years.

Let me handle these in reverse order.

Alternatively its purely a BS reaction to Uber to try and remind people that Lyft exists and is relevant.

This is almost certainly the truth.

Where can I get some of what he's smoking?

Probably pretty much anywhere.

So he wants to totally rewrite the entire legal basis for cars, road rules and insurance in the US within the next 9 years?

I don't think it's going to change changes that massive.

And expect that in a country where people almost idolize their cars that they are suddenly going to say "hell yes .. I'm selling my car tomorrow!"

The US fleet continues to age to record levels, year on year. People are buying less cars. Unfortunately, sales of hybrids are flat and sales of EVs are way down. These vehicles have a higher energy cost of production, so it's beneficial for the environment when people keep them longer. But when people keep ordinary gasoline-powered vehicles longer, they just produce worse emissions...

Ehhhhhh, energy costs for making a car are not trivial. There is a lot of chemistry and whatnot. Remember all the studies on the net losing nature of electric cars once you include maufacturing and eventual disposal of the batteries.

For a typical car, less than one third of its lifetime energy consumption is produced at the time of its consumption. That figure is based on the assumption that you will keep your car about eight or nine years, like we used to so it's actually even less than that since (in the USA) we're keeping them for over eleven years now (an all-time record for us.) For a hybrid, it might be half. But if it uses substantially less energy over its lifetime, then there might be a net benefit.

The best deal in cars when it comes to lifetime energy expenditure is the small diesel. With urea injection they have very low emissions, and the vehicle comes out much lighter than a hybrid meaning that it takes much less energy to move it around. But the driving experience is not as good in most ways; it might be a more nimble vehicle due to the lesser weight, but it's also going to be a less powerful vehicle and it will have trouble doing things like passing. They are however much less expensive than a hybrid, and it takes less energy to refine their fuel. On the other hand, automakers and governments alike are asking the refiners to produce yet higher grades of diesel fuel than the ULSD stuff we've got now, which will raise the price of diesel if it comes to pass. And then yet again, they're also asking for higher-octane gasoline in order to support higher compression ratios, which improve efficiency and thus emissions, which means that the price of gasoline will also go up — so that's something of a wash.

The increasing age of the U.S. fleet means that hybrids are a better environmental proposition than ever before.

'other factors' like the improvements in car safety in the last 30 years. Or regular targeted checkpoints to remove drunk drivers from the road. Or the aging population bringing a shift in driver mentality. Constant campaigning commercials to raise awareness of the risks of driving under the influence. Bar tenders being forced to cut off and/or take the keys from drunks. Homeowners being liable for their drunken guests' actions, etc. I mean hell, that same website states "The rate of drunk driving is highest among 26 to 29 year olds (20.7 percent)" - and even if the drinking age is 21, it isn't like kids as young as middle school have trouble getting access to alcohol, must less late teens.

Personally found this to be an interesting read on various factors. Brought up a few things I hadn't thought of before reading it.

millions of homes are heated by electricity in the winter. On a cold January night the grid could very easily be overloaded.

Power grid on winter days heats and drives industry, shops, etc. At night, it heats, while most industrial activity falls off. Lots of room for EV charging there.

That won't be true once you're charging millions of vehicles overnight.

Well, that's the point, isn't it -- use the power to charge those vehicles instead of having all that spinning hardware doing less than it could.

And of course we can add more power: solar can add hugely to the current power base. Prices are dropping very fast; ROI is down from 20 years to 2-3 years. I have a solar system here, and it has already paid for itself, and is well along in reducing my utility bills with every bit of power it generates.

Keep in mind that for most drivers, they don't need a "full tank" equivalent charge every night, or even most nights. Average number of miles driven per driver in the US is about 29 miles a day. So the power requirements are considerably less than full charge restoration.

Air conditioning plus millions of vehicles charging at work could stress the grid.

Air conditioning load drops considerably at night.

Storage can leverage low-use times into high use times. Storage is under very rapid development.

And so on.

I don't know where you normally drive, but I haven't met many human drivers capable of adapting to new situations. That's largely why there are tens of thousands of fatalities and millions of injuries in car accidents every year.

The poster is referring to risk compensation.

I'm aware of that fact. However he provided no evidence that conclusively demonstrated that it was a factor. It's a seemingly logical inference but the evidence for it seems to be generally lacking.

Multiple studies show that with the introduction of abs brakes people follow more closely.

There are plenty of studies which indicate that it has no measurable effect on driver aggressiveness including one conducted by the NTHSA provided by one of the other slashdot readers. I consider the NTHSA a reliable source on this matter but even if the others are reliable as well, which one am I to believe? Contradictory studies cannot both be correct.

Similar things are observed with seat belts and some people argue w bike helmets

Even if true those safety devices clearly and substantially improve safety for those who use them. There is no point to a system like Tesla's autopilot if it does not improve overall safety. There may be conditions where it performs worse but it's still worthwhile if it improves safety overall.

It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.

Got any evidence to back that assertion up? Personally I've never heard of anyone saying some permutation of "yeah, I've got ABS and an airbag so I'm invulnerable now". Show me some statistics that demonstrate a significant increase in accidents attributable to ABS and/or airbags.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g...

ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. Fatal run-off-road crashes of passenger cars increased by a statistically significant 9 percent (90% confidence bounds: 3% to 15% increase), offset by a significant 13-percent reduction in fatal collisions with pedestrians (confidence bounds: 5% to 20%) and a significant 12-percent reduction in collisions with other vehicles on wet roads (confidence bounds: 3% to 20%).

More blatant ignorance from the Beeb. The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation. Then there is the 'possible' increase in prostate cancer in pilots....didn't even consider the lifestyle of pilots. I sometimes wonder if these authors even stop to think about what they are spewing. There are studies that link prolonged sitting of truck drivers to prostate cancer, but instead lets assume a cancer that has historically no tie to ionizing radiation might be due to the small amount of exposure from air travel. SMFH.

The author notes that specifically in TFA.

However the charity Cancer Research UK says this may be related to other lifestyle factors such as the pilots spending more time sunbathing than the average person.

I would like to see a comparison between airline pilots and truck drivers though. Both have to meet similar physical health requirements (yes, truck drivers are required to get physicals.), have similar duties, but one is exposed to more radiation.

From this report (chart on page 7), a passenger car rollover (ie - not a light truck) begets a 16% chance of fatality.

This is not the first Tesla rollover crash I've read about, the other one would lead me to believe that Teslas are in fact safer than average. (Click the link and see for yourself, the crash was reportedly spectacular.)

Of the crash in question, Tesla had this to say:

“We received an automated alert from this vehicle on July 1 indicating airbag deployment, but logs containing detailed information on the state of the vehicle controls at the time of the collision were never received. This is consistent with damage of the severity reported in the press, which can cause the antenna to fail. As we do with all crash events, we immediately reached out to the customer to confirm they were ok and offer support but were unable to reach him. We have since attempted to contact the customer three times by phone without success. Based on the information we have now, we have no reason to believe that Autopilot had anything to do with this accident.”

The owner *claims* that the car was in autopilot, but we don't really know yet.

Also of note, the following (from same link):

[...] As reported yesterday, the police investigator on the case, Dale Vukovich, said that he is likely to charge Scaglione after his investigation without specifying the charges.

I'm going to wait a couple of days before making any judgements on this specific incident.

At the worst, it *may be* that autopilot mode isn't appropriate for human drivers simply due to the chance of it being misused. If too many people are relying on it when they shouldn't, then it likely should be taken off the market.

But that's an entirely different situation from Tesla being negligent, or unsafe, or unpromising.

It's a bit out of date, but at least on the Federal level, the Government makes more on road fuel taxes than it spends on roads. The excess funds subsidies for trains, buses, and airplanes. Overwhelmingly gas taxes not only pay for interstates and Federal highway projects, but provide enough surplus that it's spent on public transport (which is heavily subsidized). And then when there's a dip in revenues, it's the highway infrastructure maintenance/expansion that is halted (that which directly creates the stream of revenue) in favor of that which is subsidized heavily. Easier to get people to swallow higher taxes if you inconvenience them...

Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.

This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.

Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.

This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.

This is why they need to put back in the roadside trees, the ones they remove with great enthusiasm because motorists keep hitting them. Roadside trees give motorists a greater sense of speed so they will drive more slowly.

I frequently drive on a road with a 30mph speed limit, limited visibility due to hills and curves, no shoulder on one side with trees growing right up to the street, and heavy bicycle traffic during the warmer months. None of that stops the idiots around here from trying to go 50mph through there, including one guy in an F150 who likes to play the slow-down-speed-up-slow-down-speed-up game behind people doing the speed limit and then crosses the double yellow line and floors it at the first opportunity. More roadside trees won't slow anyone down unless they randomly jump into the road when a speeding driver approaches.

This is why they need to put back in the roadside trees, the ones they remove with great enthusiasm because motorists keep hitting them.

I love the logic of those folks - hit a tree, and it is the tree's fault.

I wonder if these Einsteins ever consider that perhaps the tree is keeping the driver from hitting something else, like a house, or a person.

I'm fortunate that my neighborhood hasn't joined in that idiocy. We have a lot of trees, and they line the roadways with beauty.

A residential street...is almost always 25 miles per hour or even less. Not many peopple who are trying to avoid traffic eve drive that speed.

This is why they need to put back in the roadside trees, the ones they remove with great enthusiasm because motorists keep hitting them. Roadside trees give motorists a greater sense of speed so they will drive more slowly.

These neighborhoods only need to convince their local traffic "engineers" (I use this word in the most optimistic sense possible) that a few airbag-equipped cars hitting trees is a much better outcome than neighborhood children getting mowed down.

A better analogy would be Ford announcing a new car that can achieve speeds of up to 250m/s, leases for $300/month, but you can only drive it 1,000 km/month before they start charging you $10 for every 50 km over. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it's both possible and legal to maintain those speeds. Driving at top speed, you'd hit the cap in about 66min 40sec, but even driving slower speeds you'd hit the cap before the month was out more often than not -- on average people drive ~21,700 km per year, or approximately 1,800km/month.

But what about just buying other cars without those shitty terms? Well, in this case Ford also owns the roads, and you can only drive their cars on them. Don't like it? Move to another city out of their jurisdiction (spoiler: the other cities also have the same problem, only with GM or Toyota). Think it's a monopoly that should be busted up? Pish-posh, you can always ride your bicycle on the sidewalk -- according to the regulators and legislators they bought, that's more than enough competition!

Now, some small observations, not verifiable with any sources as of yet
in 1999 we had about 130 to 135 million cars on the road http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/o... gives me a general idea
we now have about 150 to 160 million ( can't find the anything )

but the observation is; more traffic at night.
now this is out of scope but this is something I experienced.

in 1990 I live in a metropolitan area and at 3am, traffic home would take 21 minutes ( pass maybe 5 to 20 cars )
1995 28 min
2000 33 min
2010 46 min
The drive was from Hoboken NJ to my house, same roads just a lot more cars

The only reason I recall all this, I had to wake up to drive to the shore, and I would complain about lack of time.

You can get a free rental. Call and make an appointment ASAP. Honda gave us a rental for 30 days until the fixed the car. You might have to bitch and moan about it. ALSO they have to fix your car in a reasonable amount of time OTHERWISE the manufacturer must replace the item with an identical or reasonably equivalent item or, for a vehicle, refund its purchase price less a reasonable amount for depreciation: "Vehicles may be remedied in any of three ways: repairing the vehicle; replacing the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle; or refunding the vehicle’s purchase price, less a reasonable amount for depreciation. Replacement equipment may be remedied by either repairing it or replacing it with identical or reasonably equivalent equipment. Tires are required to be repaired or replaced within 60 days of when an owner receives notification about their recall. Where the free remedy offered is a repair, manufacturers are required to conduct that repair adequately and within a reasonable amount of time. A failure to conduct a repair adequately within 60 days after the consumer presents the item for repair is evidence of a failure to repair within a reasonable time. NHTSA may, however, extend the 60-day period where good reason is shown. In the event a repair is not done adequately within a reasonable amount of time, the manufacturer must replace the item with an identical or reasonably equivalent item or, for a vehicle, refund its purchase price less a reasonable amount for depreciation." http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/r...

NHTSA estimates that airbags save about 600 lives per year. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/p... Even if they are off by an order of magnitude, the number of deaths from faulty airbags pales in comparison. Sucks if you were one of the 10 or so deaths from what would have been a minor accident, but it's similar to vaccines. Millions of lives have been saved from vaccines, but if you are one of the rare people who has a serious reaction to a vaccine.

A Tesla uses around 360 wh/mi. That's 11 miles at the low end, and 22 miles with the 8 kwh/gallon number.

So say 16 miles... not exactly how far an average car goes on a gallon, but certainly nothing to sneeze at.

A Nissan leaf (300 wh/mi) using that high estimate would go 26.7 mi on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas (although I suspect that 8 kwh is too high). That really is as far as an average car (light duty vehicles, short wheel base http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/si...) went in 2014... 23.2 mpg.

No doubt. The tracking industry in the USA is hit with this right now. Shaw (or Omnitracs) are basically taken as the de facto standard, all existing cheaper options may become illegal. I can't imagine that this was done in the USA without involvement of the biggest eLog system providers.

On the other hand, from here we see estimates that Standards 203&204 saved 21,600 people from death or injury in 1978 alone. From the article:

"In 1978, when nearly 90 percent of the passenger car fleet had complied with Standards 203 and 204, 41,400 drivers of passenger cars were killed or hospitalized as a result of contact with the steering assembly during the crash. This number would have increased to 63,000 if the steering assembly improvements required by Standards 203 and 204 had not been made"

Later it says "if all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, there would have been 1300 fewer driver fatalities than if none of the cars had complied".

Wow. In fairness, the study says that these were implemented by 1968, so if we had been discussing 1960s cars this would be relevant, but since we're discussing 1970s cars, it isn't really. I just thought you would find it very interesting. These standards concern collapsing steering wheels and not having the steering wheel displace into the driver's space (crushing him). Surprisingly, it said that in about 50% of the accidents the steering column energy absorbing devices didn't work.... so I'm left wondering how many more lives would have been saved if a 100% effective design had been implemented! By the way, it mentions that the estimated cost per vehicle of implementing these changes were $10.46 (in 1978 dollars).

Turns out seat belts were also required to be fitted, but it wasn't until much later that most states required them to be used (I remember as a kid we always used them because my Dad worked for the phone company and they stressed the use of seat belts, but many many people back then didn't use them).

It wasn't until 1979 that NHTSA started crash testing cars.

Besides seat belts, steering columns, and air bags, the biggest "modern" safety feature I usually think of is the crumple zone. When I was a kid in the 60's & 70's most cars were built rigidly. You could crash into stuff and the car would look fine (but the people inside would be dead). The development of the side crumple zone didn't happen until the early 1990s...

Here's a graph of annual deaths per billion miles traveled: here (chart by Dennis Bratland found in Wikipedia).

EV's market share will remain marginal until a recharging infrastructure is built. People will need to see that they have a reliable means of charging their vehicles when they want to take any trip that is over 300 miles away from home.

300 miles seems rather arbitrary. According to the United States Bureau of Transportation 43% of Americans travel less the 100 miles (one way) during the holidays, and 47% any other time of the year. A car that can reliably go 150 miles (one way) would cover 65.4% of the market. 150 miles real world would probably work out to be 200 miles advertised, which is going to happen in the next 10 years. It might even be affordable.

For those that need more then 150 miles, either rent an IC vehicle for the times it is needed. Or buy an IC vehicle for those trips, and use the EV as the daily driver.

Even so, that's 600 gallons for each of those 500,000 cars. New cars and light trucks get around 23 mpg, so let's say 20 mpg average when including older ones. That's 12,000 miles per car. US DOT says the average miles driven per year is 13476, so they're overstating the equivalence. 300,000,000 * 20 = 6,000,000,000 miles, /13476 = 445236 cars. So that was dishonestly rounded up.

Ahem. 13476 miles / 600 gallons = 22.46 mpg, which closely agrees with your original mpg number, especially when significant figures are considered.
You introduced the significant error that you claim they dishonestly rounded up: "around 23 mpg, so let's say 20 mpg".

22.5 / 20 * 445,236 = 500,890.5, or simply 500,000 when using significant figures.

Right. And if you follow through the links, you'll find a statement that the leak was the equivalent of "burning 300 million gallons of gasoline." That's a nice round number, and I'd bet they rounded up.

Even so, that's 600 gallons for each of those 500,000 cars. New cars and light trucks get around 23 mpg, so let's say 20 mpg average when including older ones. That's 12,000 miles per car. US DOT says the average miles driven per year is 13476, so they're overstating the equivalence. 300,000,000 * 20 = 6,000,000,000 miles, /13476 = 445236 cars. So that was dishonestly rounded up.

Looking at it another way, the EIA says the US consumed, "In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons..." So, that leak was equivalent to less than 0.22% of US gasoline consumption. That seems to be a more honest indication of the scale.

Most excellent. I'm going to presume you'll not go stalking me? I've met a whole bunch of Slashdotters (well, at least a couple dozen) in real life and none of them have yet stalked me or harassed me. In fact, we got along quite well. I see you have me on your "foes" list. I don't mind that, that doesn't bother me at all.

Nah, I don't care who you are -- only if you're persuasive or not. Apparently, at some point in the past I found you to be offensively unpersuasive...

Let me try this and we'll see where it goes. I might as well at least demonstrate that I don't pull numbers out of my ass. I don't know when you where in the industry last but, here's a citation for that figure that I gave you about striping and the value of it: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...

Ah, that article talks about rural two-lane roads, arterials, freeways, and interstates. Urban collector and local streets are conspicuous by their absence from the article (rural collectors are mentioned, and local streets are mentioned only once to note that they're omitted from a chart).

That's some overzealous marking - and check the signage around Atlanta (around the 285 as I recall?) where they've got signs for everything. Some of them don't even make sense! In the days before GPS was ubiquitous, I once followed seemingly every sign in the area (on and around that bypass) to find a suburb that began with an M... It wasn't Marietta, I know where that is and I remember the name. I followed them all... I turns out, When I wasn't on the bypass, I was missing the correct options to take.

Morrow or Mableton, maybe?

Anyway, I'm from Metro Atlanta and don't get down to the coast very much, so I don't know about the excessive signage on I-95. I certainly know about how the signage stops being adequate when you get off the interstate, but I can't think of any that's wrong on it. I wish you were more specific in that example (and also that you had an example of excessive striping near Atlanta -- or alternatively, a Google Maps link of your example off I-95 so I could see what you're talking about).

Back on topic: it seems to me that the UK's strategy here is to remove striping on the roads that are the least like the ones your link addresses, urban collectors and local streets. In terms of Panama City Beach, think of applying it to places like Front Beach Road -- the part where all the tourist trap stuff is, that's too choked with pedestrians for traffic to move fast anyway -- not US 98 and not highway 30 outside of town. Or for perhaps a better example, whatever streets constitute "downtown" in Panama City itself, assuming it has a downtown.

Or in terms of Atlanta, think of applying it to Peachtree Street in Midtown or Downtown, but not a road like Northside Drive (which, as you can see, is so pedestrian-unfriendly that they have Jersey barriers to keep people from trying to cross).

Most excellent. I'm going to presume you'll not go stalking me? I've met a whole bunch of Slashdotters (well, at least a couple dozen) in real life and none of them have yet stalked me or harassed me. In fact, we got along quite well. I see you have me on your "foes" list. I don't mind that, that doesn't bother me at all. However, it'd make things simpler just to give you my full name so that you can verify it - presumably that's what you'd like to do. I'm okay with that but, well... Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what you'll do with that information - others have it. What will you do with it once you're done and have the answers you want? You've already indicated that you don't like me. I presume you're reasonably mature but I've no way of knowing that.

Let me try this and we'll see where it goes. I might as well at least demonstrate that I don't pull numbers out of my ass. I don't know when you where in the industry last but, here's a citation for that figure that I gave you about striping and the value of it:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...

Now, to put this particular issue in perspective, without data (and three routes is not adequate) I can't support (if you read what I wrote) removing lane markings. In fact, I'll need a lot of data before I would suggest doing so on any scale that's measurable. That does not mean it does not have value - it means I'll need to see more evidence. Now, what to add to that? I suppose this might turn out pretty long.

That should also mean that I don't think it would be cost effective, or a large enough enhancement in safety, to go removing the center lane marking from roads where the drivers are used to it. Unless you have very compelling evidence, you do not make great alterations. Why? The changes have a negative value of their own and the added confusion with some drivers (likely not as much in the UK as they spend longer learning to drive and have a more stringent test than we have in the US) will be yet another negative. How much of a negative? Well, I really don't have that sort of data sitting here in front of me - which is one of the reasons I mentioned that I'd need more data to make an informed choice.

They are removing a known good safety feature. A known good safety feature. I'm loathe to say that I know that's a bad thing (which is why I'd not say such a thing) but I will say that they need some damned good evidence to convince me of the value of that choice. It's 9:00 at night - I can actually make a few phone calls and see if anyone knows anything about this tomorrow, if you really want.

And, lest I forget, if you live around Georgia you should be familiar with Georgia. They have the tendency to, well... Be a bit zealous, it's not just lines. Ever notice the I-95 corridor's signage at exit ramps? Even if you go out to the swamp, they've stuck paint on everything and have signs everywhere they don't have paint. That's only a slight exaggeration. Count the "NO PARKING" signs, on the side of I-95, near any of the intersections. If you go out back towards the swamp (I forget the root but heading over from Dothan I believe) you'll find a section of the road that has been painted with airplanes - and a bunch of lines that don't appear to actually have anything to do with the fact that the area's designated as an emergency landing strip. That's not that abnormal - except these stenciled airplanes go well past the straight and flat section and go all the way around a couple of corners.

That's some overzealous marking - and check the signage around Atlanta (around the 285 as I recall?) where they've got signs for everything. Some of them don't even make sense! In the days before GPS was ubiquitous, I once followed seemingly every sign in the area (on and around that bypass) to find a suburb that began with an M... It wasn't Marietta, I know where that is and I remember the name. I followed them all... I turns out, When I wasn't on the bypass, I was missing

Alterations to the center line generally work to change driver speeds.

US-centric explanation: The broken line is a fixed pattern of 10-foot-long "dots" spaced apart by 30-foot-long gaps (source, under 3A.06 04 "Guidance".), "or dimensions in a similar ratio... as appropriate for traffic speeds". When driving, the "dots" meet the edge of visibility (usually near the hood or dashboard) on a very regular "heartbeat". Drivers typically have a rhythm. Music on the radio can alter the driver's rhythm. Drivers will adjust their speed so that the "heartbeat" of the road matches their own rhythm. If you want people to speed up, space the "dots" farther apart on the road. They'll put the pedal down to compensate for the extra distance between them. If you want them to slow down, paint shorter, closer-spaced "dots" and people will slow down to compensate for the increased pace of the "heartbeat".