Slashdot Mirror

So let's cut all federal highway funding and 13.7% of state roadway funding, and all federal mass transit funding, and all state transit funding not directly paid by transit fares.

Local governments can do what their citizens want. (Maybe stop building streets altogether if you think those are only used for the 95% of us who drive. That will be quite the unprecedented city with no streets.) Federal subsidies to local governments should also be eliminated along with most of the federal gas tax.

That should solve the question of "you get a nickel subsidy so I should get 10 dollars".

(Transit fares only pay for 40% of annual operating costs, which doesn't even include building the roads or tracks or buying the vehicles.)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
April 2005

"...the lesser severities and generally lower unit costs for rear end injury crashes together ensure that the increase in rear end crash frequency does not negate the decrease in the right-angle crashes targeted by red-light-camera systems."

"This analysis, which was based on an aggregation of rear end and right-angle crash costs for various severity levels, showed that RLC systems do indeed provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit."

"...this economic analysis represents the first attempt in the known literature to combine the positive effects of right-angle crash reductions with the negative effects of rear end crash increases and identify factors that might further enhance the effects of RLC systems. ... Even though the positive effects on angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year... The modest benefit per site is an average over all sites. As the analysis of factors showed, this benefit can be increased through careful selection of the sites to be treated ... and program design..."

The study's conclusion does point out that red light cameras are not a cure-all for every intersection -- "RLC systems would be most beneficial at intersections where there are relatively few rear end crashes and many right-angle ones." But think about it -- would you rather be in a rear-end collision or a right-angle collision?

http://www.dot.gov/pia/nhtsa_artemis.htm

what?

According to the Department of Transportation, one human life is worth $2,600,000, meaning that the damage of this scam was approximately equal to that of 38 deaths. To put this in perspective, the Manson family almost earned death penalties for only 27. I hope the judge takes this into account when deciding sentencing.

Sure the program was flawed. But stop spewing the biased implication that the program's result was just "going from 20 to 25mpg".

That may have been allowed under the law. But the actual results were that the average trade-in went from 15.8 to 24.9mpg.

I don't know where you got the "50,000 miles worth of gasoline" number, or how to convert that to energy when we're specifically talking about cars with a variety of gas-to-mileage ratios. But let's assume that you meant "the equivalent of 2,000 gallons of gas" required to manufacture a typical new car.

Over the 300,000 mile life you claim, a car with 15.8 mpg will use 18,987 gallons. A car with 24.9 mpg will use 12,048 gallons. So the average new car bought with the program, after adding the "2,000" gallon construction cost, still saves almost 5000 gallons of gas over the vehicle life. (Yes, assuming all the cars were gasoline. More savings for diesels.)

Several billion dollars a year are funded out of federal general fund appropriations, which is significantly made up of federal income taxes. That is about 1% of total highway spending. ("Funding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2007" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm)

In addition, in 2009-2010, $26 billion in federal general budget funds were obligated for National Highway projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, aka $700+ billion "Stimulus") http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The ARRA is funded out of general appropriations, made significantly up of income tax receipts.

The federal funding for highway construction that was provided prior to 1955 (unknown percentage compared to state funding), was provided by the general fund of the U.S. Treasury (significantly made up of income taxes). In addition, "In September 2008 the Highway Trust Fund (funded by federal fuel taxes) was depleted of funds and required a transfer of $8 billion from federal general revenue funds, by act of Congress. Currently the fund is projected to run out in 2009." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29)

1950's - "The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 set aside $175 million for the construction of an interstate highway system. However, even more money was needed for the system that Eisenhower envisioned, and he continued to press for funds. Two years later, the expanded Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorized a budget of $25 billion, of which the federal share was to be 90%." (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/interstate1.html) The federal fuel tax was established in 1956 as well, to fund the Highway Trust Fund.

Currently - "About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and designated property and other taxes. The federal contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution. However, local contributions are overwhelmingly from sources other than user fees. The portion of the user fees spent on highways themselves covers about 57% of costs, as approximately one-sixth of the user fees are diverted to other programs, prominently including mass transit. In the eastern United States, large sections of some Interstate Highways planned or built prior to 1956 are operated as toll roads." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Financing)

Several billion dollars a year are funded out of federal general fund appropriations, which is significantly made up of federal income taxes. That is about 1% of total highway spending. ("Funding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2007" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm)

In addition, in 2009-2010, $26 billion in federal general budget funds were obligated for National Highway projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, aka $700+ billion "Stimulus") http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The ARRA is funded out of general appropriations, made significantly up of income tax receipts.

The federal funding for highway construction that was provided prior to 1955 (unknown percentage compared to state funding), was provided by the general fund of the U.S. Treasury (significantly made up of income taxes). In addition, "In September 2008 the Highway Trust Fund (funded by federal fuel taxes) was depleted of funds and required a transfer of $8 billion from federal general revenue funds, by act of Congress. Currently the fund is projected to run out in 2009." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29)

1950's - "The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 set aside $175 million for the construction of an interstate highway system. However, even more money was needed for the system that Eisenhower envisioned, and he continued to press for funds. Two years later, the expanded Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorized a budget of $25 billion, of which the federal share was to be 90%." (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/interstate1.html) The federal fuel tax was established in 1956 as well, to fund the Highway Trust Fund.

Currently - "About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and designated property and other taxes. The federal contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution. However, local contributions are overwhelmingly from sources other than user fees. The portion of the user fees spent on highways themselves covers about 57% of costs, as approximately one-sixth of the user fees are diverted to other programs, prominently including mass transit. In the eastern United States, large sections of some Interstate Highways planned or built prior to 1956 are operated as toll roads." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Financing)

I looked at this NHTSA page, but didn't see such a study listed. Could you point me to the study you are talking about in particular?

but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation

Nuh uh.

From the Federal Highway Administration, as posted in another comment:

Permissive yellow rule:

• Driver can legally enter intersection during entire yellow interval
• Violation occurs if driver enters intersection after onset of red

Restrictive yellow rule:

• Driver can neither enter nor be in intersection on red
• Violation occurs if driver has not cleared intersection after onset of red

...

The permissive yellow rule is that stated in the MUTCD and Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC). 37 states + DC have laws in substantial conformity with the meaning of the yellow and red indications in the MUTCD and UVC. Another 9 states require motorists to stop on yellow but also drive cautiously through the intersection on the red if too close to stop safely.

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

There's two rules, and they vary depending on where you live. There's Permissive Yellow, where you're legal if you entered the intersection before the light changed to red, and then there's Restrictive Yellow where you're considered to have run the red light if it changes to red while you're still in the intersection. In the US most, but not all, states are Permissive Yellow.

Of course, the numbers will just be ignored by folks who swear that that one woman who they saw run a redlight four years ago are the rule, because it's the eleventy thousand perfectly normal, not in any way out-of-the-ordinary things we see happen every day that we remember perfectly.

* Total fatalities, fatalities per X drivers, fatalities per X miles driven ...

You may be right, but may be wrong. What they should have done was compare it to the general stats on fatalities to see if the elderly are overrepresented in Prius crashes. But you have to figure out the percentage of them that drive Priuses and correct for that as well. We don't know whether it's statistically significant, but you insinuate that because they didn't correct for this, their message was wrong. It could be right or wrong, but we don't have enough info to determine it either way.

Not to mention, looking at the data indicates that "fatalities" are skewed toward the elderly, you read it wrong in that the Google spreadsheet provided was tracking incidents, not fatalities. Unless you meant the article linked, which indicated over 50% of fatalities involved drivers over 60, while the general fatality rate for all crashes has about 15% of crashes involving over 60s. So unless old people are 4 times as likely to drive a Prius as the general population, it still shows old people are over represented. Now all we need is rates for Prius mileage driven by over 60 vs under 60. If the rate is anywhere close to even, then the numbers show a distinct age related factor.

So, you are 100% right that we can't draw any real conclusions yet, but it does prove that either old people drive Priuses much more than everyone else, or there is a distinct age-related factor. So, since you seem to poo poo the idea of an age related factor, please present your proof that the elderly are more likely to drive a Prius. Any less than this, and your post was just an ill-thought out "I don't like that implication, so I'll just make a half-assed comment about the data being crap without ever having thought about the issue.

Or are you no less a moron than the people you complained about?

Oh, and if anyone wonders where you get good stats on traffic fatalities in the US, go to http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Fatal Accident Reporting System, abbreviated FARS, then renamed Fatal Analysis Reporting System because the government hates "accident" because people associate "unavoidable" with accident, when 99% of crashes are avoidable driver error.

Not all roads in the US are super wide and even when they are theres alot of accidents caused from crossing the median.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

11.2 deaths per 100,000

1.27 deaths per 100,000,000 miles driven

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

The US has between 305 and 310 million people and "in 2006, there were nearly 203 million licensed drivers in the United States."

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig4_3.cfm

To partially answer your question, compare the above to the following graph of number of licensed drivers by age from the Federal Highway Administration:

Licensed Drivers

This pdf:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf (warning, pdf)

Check page 24.

"Panic brake applications used in conjunction with ABS resulted in the shortest straight line stopping distances on the dry concrete and the wet polished concrete surfaces for all nine test vehicles at both loading conditions"

This was tested with ABS, with no ABS and with "best effort" experienced driver with no ABS with manual brake pumping.

Don't just take my word for it, it has been tested. Read it for yourself.

It also confirms the increase in distance on gravel and loose snow, which is obvious, but if you are in such a situation, you should be driving more carefully (ie slowly) anyway so that the difference between ABS and not isn;t the difference between a crash or not (ie, the difference between having the system and not should not be your margin of error).
 

Toyota has been holding back a lot of recalls at the expense of customer safety.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/recallmonthlyreports.cfm
I can't wait to see the February report.

Car companies have been issuing/expanding recalls (~500K vehicles) recently and mostly counting on the fact that since Toyota is in the news, they won't be.

I also love how Chevrolet/Chrysler/Dodge seem to be buying Ads on Google related to the keyword "recall".
/I also never realized how many recalls there are for motorcycles.

Well see, all those fancy sensors and solenoid controlled mechanics allow you to have features like: anti-lock brakes, traction control, electronic stability control, adaptive cruise control, parking assist, collision avoidance, etc. ABS is already mandatory; ESC (and inherently TC) will be mandatory on all new vehicles as of 2011. Despite their quirks, these features have probably saved many more lives and injuries than they've risked.

The experts seem to think it works for motorcycles. No, I didn't see anyone recommending it for bikes either.

Granted, the speed differential is much greater for bicycles vs parked cars. Still, I find the person in the mirror visible at 20-30m, which is good for some decent reaction time up to 20-25 mph.

Any company that has the resources to make a manned space flight will have no problem either pulling the correct strings to get licensing, or simply finding their own island to do so.

It's closer to 74,000 (37,000/year), but the breakdown is important:

The number of drivers and passengers killed is about 26,000. The other 11,000 are motorcyclists (5,000), and non-motorists.

The number of drivers and passengers killed per mile driven is 1.3 per 100,000,000 miles

Every year 12.5 out of 100,000 of the general population is killed in an automobile related crash, or .0125%

.02 percent of licensed drivers will be killed every year

All in all, driving is a fairly risky thing to do, but so is living. 550,000 people die each year from cancer, for example.

US only numbers, source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

1992 - 1995 Isuzu Trooper recall for accelerator cable stuck causing uncontrolled acceleration

2003 Ford Escape stuck throttle cables result in uncontrolled acceleration

2002 Ford Explorers investigated for stuck throttle cables in cold weather regions

1999 - 2004 Suzuki Grand Vitara, recalled due to fraying accelerator cables that result in uncontrolled acceleration and potential crash.

I guess we need to go back to the tried and true horse and buggy as these cable controls do not have a good history of reliability. But we may need to investigate the buggy brakes to ensure the can overpower the horses.

I'm not sure what happened in your bucking Bronco but O2 sensors do not control throttle position, worst case scenario would be an oscillating idle RPM as the computer adjusted fuel mixture from lean to rich. As long as your not touching the accelerator its not going to accelerate uncontrollably and will simply run like shit.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm

US, 2000 : population = 80% urban, 20% country.

You might have noticed in my original post that I said "getting to a point where it makes economical and practical sense to have an electric". That kinda of implied that people are free to choose, and that circumstances vary. But don't let that distract you from your "freedom" rant.

One day you might handle lots of distraction at the level of a fighter pilot, but the next day have the flu or you're hung over.
Whatever happened to equality in the eyes of the law, justice is blind and other such misguided populist notions?

In 1999 the USAF had 4,200 fighter pilots. Military Fighter Pilot.

In 2006 the US had 203 million licensed drivers. Licensed Drivers by Age and Gender, 2006

The essence of impairment is that you don't know how badly you are impaired. That is why it is reasonable to adopt a rule that offers a good margin of safety for everyone on the road.

Rule G (1915)

And 99.44% of deaths in 2006 were not caused by drunk drivers.[1] [2]

[1] - Total number of reported deaths in 2006: 2,426,264
[2] - Total deaths in alcohol-related crashes in 2006: 13,491

If this is true, then why have traffic fatalities trended downward for the last several years while cell phones have shot up dramatically during the same time period?

Fatality rates are dropping annually. I'd say we're already making good progress on making crashes more survivable. Adding more "avoidance" systems only ignores the true problem - people are being encouraged to stop paying attention to driving.

Fix the drivers, not the technology.

It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth? Your wife? Child? yourself?

Obviously they are not worth very much if any of them step outdoors, or drive a car, or are present in a metro city, or do any of the hundreds of daily activities that have a much much MUCH higher chance of killing you.

In 2008, the number of American who died from a terrorist attack was about 260.
All of those except 4 were NOT in the USA. [1]

4 deaths from terrorist attacks in an entire year on US soil.

Also in the whole year of 2008, there were 37,261 deaths from auto accidents. [2]

You are 9315 times more likely to die from an auto accident, be it one you caused, one someone caused into you, or you are walking down the street and two other motorists bring the accident to you on the sidewalk.

That is almost 4 orders of magnitude higher!

For every person killed by a terrorist in this country, nearly 10,000 people are killed by a car in the exact same amount of time.

If you willingly put yourself and mother and wife and child in the situation of 'being out doors' then clearly you value them and yourself 1000 times less than if a terrorist attack was your only concern.

My question to you is, why are you so willing to spend a million dollars to stop a terrorist attack, without spending the equally valid and necessary ten billion dollars to have all cars banned and removed from the roadways?

References:
1 - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
2 - http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

How does the cost of potential lost human lives figure into this equation? I mean, due to them not working, the wrecks increase...possibly risking life and limb of taxpayers.

Human lives have a value assigned to them by the Department of Transportation. Last I heard it was $5,800,000 per year. That meant that if some hazardous road condition caused someone to die, they would change it if it cost less than $5.8M to do so. And it adds: if four people went off a cliff in one accident, and six people went off the same cliff in a different accident in the same year, they would put up guard rails, or rebuild the road, or whatever improvements it takes, up to $58 million.

By that logic, the city of Oswego, where the victim died due to the snow-covered LED signal, would spend money to swap bulbs or add heaters or spray cooking oil on lights or whatever it takes, up to $5.8 million.

It may sound cold and unfeeling to put a dollar figure on a human life, but it has to be done. Considering that a set of stoplights at a single intersection can cost over $750,000 to buy and install, cities have to spend their money wisely. Just because the neighbors ask for a stoplight because the cars go too fast doesn't mean the city has the money to give them one. But if someone should actually get injured or killed, it obviously needs to affect their priority for spending. It's just how it's done.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, cost per life saved: $544,482 Homeland security budget ~$40billion. That equates to ~73,000 lives. Have twenty four 9/11 scale disasters been prevented this year? And why does equating a death lost through motor accident with one lost through terror get me: "so why not just kill you now?" and "Why are we forbidden to kill people with a low moral compass like you?" C'mon, rational analysis of risk, not fearmongering.

That's likely because, as was demonstrated by this incompetent in miniature, even an improperly-mixed binary explosive, if in sufficient quantity, can cause a fire in the cabin that will compromise the safety of the passengers -- depressurization, fumes from the fire, fumes from upholstery, etc.

Funny that they let people carry cigarette lighters and matches on board then, eh?

Here's some perspective from these two sets of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that every woman who claimed the reason for having an abortion was because of health risks or concern for the health of the fetus (~2%) had it after 19 weeks, and that the health risks, or health defects were all of the utmost gravity. For the sake of this argument we won't discuss anything before 12 weeks, although it is important to note that at 12 weeks the brain has already divided into 5 regions and has been developing as a cohesive whole for 5 weeks.
Now, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States in 2005. That means that there were at least 111,320 (9.2% of 1.21 million) fetuses aborted between 12 and 19 weeks of development (more developed than this little guy). That's over 110,000 fetuses who are as able to feel pain as anyone else, and make facial expressions, being aborted every year with various descriptions of (in)convenience being the reason given by the mother.

In comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the number of fatalities for 2005 (in the U.S.) involving alcohol was 17,590. The fatalities for all other accidents was 25,920. Pediatric cancer killed 2,200 children in 2004. Deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS for children and adults was 25,000 in all of North America in 2008. So the deaths attributed to all these hot-button issues combined is less than the deaths of fetuses.

Regarding the "they'll still do it no matter how strict the law" argument:
This argument only works on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the activity itself. For example, statistics demonstrate that men will still rape women, regardless of how harsh the penalty (even in countries where the penalty is death). Legalized rape means fewer women die, because the rapist will not feel the need to kill the woman to prevent her from reporting him to the police. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive?

Do you see that just as you believe that rape is an intrinsically unacceptable act, and therefore there can be no justification for it's legal acceptance, so do the anti-abortion believers believe that the abortion of a fetus for the sake of convenience (being seen as murder) is an intrinsically unacceptable act?

Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value.

cite
If someone is looking at LOLcats on their iPhone and kills you in a car crash and they blow a 0.01 on a breathalizer because they were eating a bagel with their free hand that is considered an alcohol-related fatality. If you run over a a drunk guy on a bike that counts as an alcohol-related fatality. Furthermore, if there is no breathalizer done then they use "statistical modeling" to determine if alcohol is involved. I don't know what kind of modeling they use, but my guess is that they say there is a 33% chance alcohol was involved and list is as such. I'm not sure why their threshold for "alcohol-related" is so low, but it definitely gives us some big, scary numbers.

Do you think the nhtsa is afraid of Wikispeedia ?
Doubtful, they will ultimately compete and win...

It's called the MUTCD. Read it!

I don't know about Canada, but in the US the number of accidents annually has been declining for years, while the number of vehicles on the road has been increasing. That stat alone indicates that there is no real problem of drivers distracted by electronic devices.
Go to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration web page http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ to see more evidence. The top 2 headlines on there page are:
"NHTSA Announces Record Low Traffic Fatalities to Start 2009" followed by
"New Research Finds Increase in Use of Hand-Held Devices Among All Drivers"

So why is there so much hype about hand held devices and driving when stats indicate there is no problem?

As of January 1, 2008, customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage. Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops, cell phones and cameras, but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated. Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices. Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport. For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying, please visit http://safetravel.dot.gov/.

I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.

Ah, I see where you've gone off now. You don't seem to understand the concept of Nonverbal Communication. This is why the person being in the car is completely different to bluetooth. You know when you go around a curve too fast and someone grabs the "Oh Shit!" handle? Or the sensation you get when someone tenses up beside you because some moron ran the red light and is about to slam into you? These are clues that cut the conversation short with a live person. On bluetooth, they just keep talking through your crash.

As to where your flight analogy fails is that the tower is watching you. They are looking at you, giving you clearance (telling you that they've looked around and it's ok) for you to land. The person on the other end of your bluetooth isn't looking at you telling you that no one is trying to speed through that red light.

Another instance where your analogy fails is that (you've admitted) the hardest part of flying is take off and landing (despite this, you yourself admit that people still crash because of wireless communication). You know it's hard and you know you have to concentrate. Driving through and intersection is the most dangerous (as in where most accidents occur) part of driving, but I guarantee that no one pays any more attention then.

Try this, next time you go flying, when you're landing, start hitting on the control tower while you try to land.

Handsfree is not safe. Your protests sound like the protests of people who were against seat-belts "They're more a danger than anything. I can brace myself on the dash." or people against DUI "I drive better drunk/ stoned because I have to pay more attention."

The writer builds his entire argument on the idea that, like highways, building network capacity produces a phenomenon called "induced traffic". The more roads you build, the traffic they attract, producing an unending(but not really) cycle of expansion and congestion.

Your logic is so full of fail I don't know where to begin.
1. Induced Travel: Frequently Asked Questions
[Federal Highway Administration's] position reflects the consensus of the transportation planning and travel behavior research community that induced travel is neither more nor less than the cumulative result of individual traveler choices and land development decisions made in response to an improved level of transportation service.

Literally: if you build it, they will come.
The result of this is that new highway projects are less about extra lanes and more about toll/HOV lanes.

if the network is built to handle the upper-limit of the most data-intensive users even in a hypothetical "induced traffic" scenario, this won't be a problem.

Almost nobody designs roads or wireless networks (or even wired networks) for peak capacity except in very specific situations. This is why subway trains fill up during rush hour, highways slow to a crawl, and cellphone towers start dropping calls. Heck, I once managed to get stuck in a highway traffic jam so big that the local cell towers got overloaded.

Your entire argument is based on the false idea that businesses will build for peak capacity.
They won't. It is extremely expensive and the idle capacity doesn't pay itself off.
Seriously, it's like you've never heard of contention ratios or overbookingbefore.

Actually, the interstates were "designed" to keep traffic moving at about 80 mph, nationwide. A good driver can actually navigate just about all of the interstate system doing that speed - some mountain areas never made the grade, and probably never will. Oh, wow, this site disagrees with what I was taught - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm "Examples of design standards for the Interstate System include full control of access, design speeds of 50 to 70 miles per hour (depending on type of terrain),"

I'm sure that if I were to google around some more, I could find Eisenhower's stated goal of 80 mph.

Yes, I've driven 120 and faster on the interstate, but that extra speed is just a benefit of open, flat lands.

Some studies have said that any phone conversation is a distraction, hands free or not, more so than if there's another occupant in the vehicle, because the second set of eyes are also alert for dangers, whereas the person on the other end of the phone is entirely unaware of the situation on the road in front of you.

This sort of thing is nothing but sensationalism and panic mongering. Over all numbers of traffic fatalities have decreased in number year after year since the mid 1970s. The rate of them per million miles driven has decreased linearly since the late 1960s. The numbers and rate have also decreased in the last 10 years as well. The number of injuries in car accidents has also declined in car accidents since the mid 1990's as well as the rate at which they occur. Lastly, the overall number of non-fatal accidents has also decreased from 2007 to 2008 as it has in previous years too. See this link for more info: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.PDF Cell phone usage has exploded exponentially however with cell phone use growing from some 34 million handsets in the U.S. in the 1990s to over 208 million in 2008. That's a 600% increase. Text message use has also exploded in the last 5 years jumping from something like 10 billion to 100 billion messages sent. So tell me exactly how cell phone usage has anything to do with making our highways less safe? Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm confused about the purported correlation of texting to accidents. We know that traffic fatalities are at an all-time low. And we know that the rate of texting is increasing dramatically.

So shouldn't we assume that texting makes driving safer?

I wasn't aware of the AAA's study. More, I have problems with the AAA - they have given bad advice in the past. But, this study validates what the AAA says on the subject, with a lot more credibility:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&itemID=d01bab6383f62010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD

Wow! It looks like I searched out one of the longest addresses on the web, huh? Try these http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32035670/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_commercial_drivers_cell_phones

People who claim that they drive safely while using a phone probably think they also drive safely with .2% blood alcohol content.

1972 Super Beetle: 1850lbs http://forum.rigsofrods.com/index.php?topic=5870.0
1977 MGB Roadster: 2416lbs http://www.mgbmga.com/tech/mgb4(2).htm
1965 International Scout: 3956lbs http://www.4wdonline.com/International/Scout.html

2008 Yaris: 2405lbs http://blogs.motortrend.com/6238178/miscellaneous/top-10-slowest-vehicles-recently-tested-by-motor-trend/index.html
2006 Mazda MX-5 2410lbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5
2009 Ford Explorer 4460lbs http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Explorer-2009/available-trims

I think these generally compare with the cars you listed. In general our cars are quite a bit heavier then you'd think. The weight is in the frame of the car and has metal to move the force of accidents around the passenger compartment, and to adsorb the force of impacts by crumpling. All of the plastic and fiberglass is in the exterior panels which have never been structural. Thanks to technology gained in recent years, people walk away from pretty impressive collisions in modern cars. The numbers show us that our cars are many times safer today then they were back in the day.

.7 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 1979 to .2 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 2001 http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/161.pdf
Over the last 10 years the number of collisions has stated fairly constant between .15 and .18 per 100 vehicles. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

It is true that some cyclists are reckless and self-centered, but this problem is greatly exaggerated. "American cyclists, for the most part, ride like complete assholes." This is more a matter of perception than reality.

The purpose of road regulations is generally safety, so it is natural to look at who's hurting whom and who's causing the accidents. It would be helpful to consider some actual "data," which contains things known as "facts," rather than mere anecdotal evidence, so let's look at 1996-2005 statistics for New York City, which has a disproportionate share of aggressive cyclists because of bike courier services and, some might argue, by virtue of it being NYC.

In accidents where a bicyclist was seriously injured by a vehicle, of the cases where the cause of the accident was documented, the driver was solely at fault in 64% of accidents, while the cyclist was solely at fault in 24%. The city averaged one pedestrian killed by a cyclist each year, but over 190 killed by a vehicle each year. Of course, zero drivers were killed by cyclists, but many drivers were killed by other drivers.

Also, who must suffer the consequences? You had your mirror clipped. Did you have to replace it? Were you hurt? When there is a serious accident between a car and a bike, most of the time (as above) it is the driver's fault, and the cyclist suffers the consequences; sometimes it is the cyclist's fault, and the cyclist suffers the consequences; sometimes both are at fault, and it is the cyclist who suffers the consequences. When bikers are irresponsible, they are generally only putting themselves at risk; when drivers are irresponsible, they put other people at risk. Drunk drivers kill 13,000 people annually in the US. How many people are killed by drunk cyclists? And even when one is driving safely and following all the regulations, one is still harming others by emitting CO2 (see guilt trip below).

You mentioned a half mile line of cars stopped at a light and complained about the cyclist who passes them. Do you realize that that cyclist is one less car in that line in front of you? If all those drivers were on bikes, would there be a half mile line of cars? And is it so bad to have a bike pass a stopped car, considering that cars pass bikes all the time?

When "Americans generally hold cyclists in low regard," it has more to do with fighting back against the idea that they should drive less, than it has to do with the cyclists themselves. When you ask Americans to change their way of life, they go on the attack, and cyclists are a reminder of the carbon guilt trip that's being laid on them.

Since it doesn't look like anybody actually READ the report Oregon put out on milage taxes I'll provide a link to the report. The reports themselves are in the top right of the page. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/mileage.shtml They realize there is a privacy issue. Transportation Research Board (TRB) who conducts millions of dollars of research each year realizes there is a privacy issue. They are working on it. Please stop yelling "The sky is falling" so loudly and let's have a well informed, civil discussion about this. The gas tax hasn't been increased in ~20 years, so we'll have to pay for new roads somehow. If you hadn't received a raise in 20 years you'd be looking for new sources of income too. On top of that, vehicles are getting more miles to the gallon (a good thing), but are still damaging the road the same amount and paying less to do so (a bad thing). Either way, I think I'm late to this discussion, but they are worthwhile reports to read and should be attached to every discussion on this topic. I'd guess this paper should be read too, but I haven't read it myself. http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf

While desirable it is not actually necessary for a tax to relate to what it is paying for.

But this is exactly what the gas tax does, and as a result, fuel taxes accounted for 53% of federal highway disbursements in 2006, with more coming. This is better than mass transportation - only 34% of operating costs are paid using passenger fares. To move to a system where road users fund less of the costs would be a shame.

Besides, a tax on energy regardless of where it is used encourages efficient use which is a good thing.

I don't think arbitrarily taxing energy to encourage efficiency is a good thing.
And if you do: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

While desirable it is not actually necessary for a tax to relate to what it is paying for.

But this is exactly what the gas tax does, and as a result, fuel taxes accounted for 53% of federal highway disbursements in 2006, with more coming. This is better than mass transportation - only 34% of operating costs are paid using passenger fares. To move to a system where road users fund less of the costs would be a shame.

Besides, a tax on energy regardless of where it is used encourages efficient use which is a good thing.

I don't think arbitrarily taxing energy to encourage efficiency is a good thing.
And if you do: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Okay, so we're looking at 154,500,000 USD, right? The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents.[tax] Average gas mileage is, say 22 MPG.[miles] Or, we pay .8 cents per mile. This means the study costs 18,472,826,890 miles---18 billion. We drove 1,444 billion miles last year. So, this "only" costs one percent of our mileage tax.

But, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the information collected is unreasonable---there are less intrusive measures (odometer).[fourth] Of course, there are a lot of you who think the Constitution is outdated and prefer a flexible interpretation.

[tax]: www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
[miles]:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
[total]: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09juntvt/09juntvt.pdf
[fourth]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution