Slashdot Mirror
Citing Polluting Vehicles Using Roadside Sensors
Makarand writes "A regional southern Californian law will
soon allow installation of
roadside sensors to measure pollutants from tailpipes
as vehicles accelerate.
The sensors would then activate a camera to photograph the license plates of vehicles whose emissions are too high and the owner would be notified to bring his vehicle for a smog check.
This would ensure that if a vehicle has developed a problem and become a polluter, the owner cannot wait till the next smog check date to fix the problem. The plan is to have these sensors in place by year 2010. As of now, the state depends on the mandatory vehicle smog checks and the Highway Patrol and travelers to report smoking vehicles."
I for one welcome our new electronic gas sniffing overlords!
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
2010? By then won't we be in our hydrogen fuel celled hybrid solar hover cars?
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
Do they honestly think this will work? Honestly? I mean, given the inherently unpredictable effects wind patterns, temperature, barometric pressure, precipitation, and even sunlight have on the often wildly fluctuating pollutant emissions coming from the cars in question, the false positive and false negative rates will make lie detectors look valid by comparison. And of course there will be no compensation for the driver if the sensor is triggered inappropriately.
Thank God I don't live in southern California.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Then get off your lazy ass and WALK.
The government doesn't have the rigth to license cars or drivers, let alone put environmental restrictiosn on them.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Uhm... why exactly doesn't the government have the right to licence cars and drivers? You drive on government owned roads don't you?
Environmental restrictions follow the same logic, just in a broader context. What would you say if I bought the property next to yours and started using dump toxic waste? Because you don't believe in environmental restrictions you won't have any problem with that, would you?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
And on a hot day? Is this going to take an average sample at any point? Keep in mind, on a hot day, the pavement itself is going to be giving off a fair ammount of pollutant. On a hot day, with heavy traffic, an average sampling of background pollutants is going to be significantly higher than on a cold day with minimal traffic.
And as for this:
Many cities have cameras with sensors at traffic lights, which have led to a slew of motorist complaints.
Apples and oranges. Issuing a moving violation requires an arrest to be made. The camera is technically the arresting officer. The driver isn't arrested, is not released on his own recognicence, so the ticket is essentially invalid. Most of these types of tickets get challenged, and since the camera can't show up in court to press it's case, most of these tickets get thrown out. To my knowlege, getting a notice for a smog check does not require an arrest to be made, so regardless of how incorrect these readings might be, the driver is pretty much SOL.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
The government doesn't have the right because the constitution does not give them that right.
While the constitution covers the federal government, the states constitutions are generrally modeled after the federal one and most of them don't give the government that right either.
As to government owned roads-- that's bullshit-- they decreed themselves the monopolists of roads. We didn't consent to them owning them. And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the post office.)
As to dumping toxic waste, if you did it at a rate that did not damage my property at all-- eg: you simply idled your car for 10 minutes in the mornings before going to work, no I wouldn't have a problem with it.
You guys are so out of touch with the science of the environment its not funny.... and you work to OPPOSE improvements ot the environemtn because of it! Just look at the devastation the "nature conservancy" brought to palmyra. What a joke.
As to the government having default rihgts-- you really oppose human rights don't you? Humans have rights. The government, by default, has NONE. And the only rights it can legitimately have are hte ones humans consent to giving it. And not the majority-- the unanimity.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
But travel by car is a PRIVILEGE!
The guy driving the smog-belching car is taking away MY right to breath non-toxic air, and my daughters right to normal brain developement uninhibited by carbon monoxide poisoning. You're god-damned right I support the taking away of his PRIVILEGE to drive that piece of crap.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Never forget that.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Travelling in a polluting vehicle is not a fundamental human right.
There are many travel choices that don't involve heavy amounts of pollution: bikes, trains, walking, and heck, even a well maintained car.
I commute by bicycle to & from work every day.
In an hour, I'll be doing some chores by bicycle.
Every single time I got for a ride (or a walk), my health, safety, right to travel & civil rights are stomped on by idiot drivers. While out there, I'll be inhaling fumes from a few cars that are spewing out way too many fumes.
What about my rights?
Thanks to Liberal governemnt we get even more poverty and persecution of those who already are poor.
Who's going to get caught by this? People driving clunkers, of course.
And what happens when you drive by a sensor 5 times a week and it sends you 5 citations at $50 or $100 a pop?
You can't afford to pay them.
And what happens when you can't afford to pay them? They sieze your car. OR you do pay them, selling your clunker to barely cover the $500.
Now you can't get to work.
So what happens? You are back in that hole that is very difficult to get out of.
Course the sensor cant tell one car from another so people will get charged constantly for the same car... actually 10 times a week, I forgot they'd be cited on the way home as well.
Gotta love that government-- persecution with a smile!
And you liberals fancy yourselves the benefactors of the poor! (Which is ironic because your policies have demonstrably increased poverty in this country) But yet another instance here you make poor people poorer and do NOTHING for the environment!
Here's a clue for the clueless-- the vast majority of environmental polution comes from the government--which operates without review-- not from individuals, and certainly not from cars.
But this isn't about the environement anyway-- this is about persecuting the poor. You just can't come right out and admit it. ITs bad enough you took away half their jobs iwth the minimum wage laws (which cuts unemployement and kills jobs) and unionization and your massive tax burden (which is regressive as all hell). No, then you had to go and waste the money that is collected by those taxes and bullshit programs like the drug war, and pouring money down the sinkhole that is public schools -- where its common to pay teachers for decades after they've died, as was recently discovered again in New Orleans.
No, much easier to claim its for the environemnt.
But you're not fooling anyone with a basic understanding of economics.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
No, travel by car is not a priviledge.
By your argument, free speech is a fundamental right, but to put that speech into a news paper that oyu own the press for is a priviledge.
You claim you have the right to stop people from publishing things you don't like to hear!
You're wrong--- free speech is a right, whether spoken or published.
Your claim that travel by car is polluting your air is not scientifically valid.
Teh vast majority of pollution in this coutry does not come from cars.
You guys always say "but what about the children". Which is bullshit because your policies ultimately persecute children (like the ones who will go hungry because you took away the car the parents used to get to work.)
Fascist, that's what you are. You OPPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You are creating rights-- you don't have the right to force people to live the way you want.
Your rights are not being violated by people living their lives their own way.
This is the problem with liberalism-- you have no clue what human rights really are and so you start creating pretend rights in an effort- ultimately-- to impose communism.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Your claim that travel by car is polluting your air is not scientifically valid.
You want to cite your scientific evidence for us?
Teh vast majority of pollution in this coutry does not come from cars
A signifigant amount of pollution does come from cars. We're not looking for a vast majority.
I'd also like to reduce the amount of government pollution. They should follow the same standards that they put upon others.
You really can walk 30 miles each way to and from work in under an hour?
Wow, you're amazing!
But I suspect you're a liar.
The average person walks 5 miles an hour...so that would be a bout 12 hours walking to and from work. With an 8 hour day that leaves 4 hours to sleep.
Not very practical.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You are creating rights-- you don't have the right to force people to live the way you want.
Such as the driver who used his car to force me off the road the other day?
I have a right to be there. He violated that right. I was doing nothing wrong.
Your rights are not being violated by people living their lives their own way.
Actually, as I stated before, my right to travel on the roads, and travel safely; is violated every fucking day.
I have no problem with someone living their life their own way, as long as it doesn't violate my fundamental rights. Drive naked? Fine. Sacrifice stray cats? Fine. Smoke crack? Fine. Let your children drink? Fine.
Try to run me off the road? Make me inhale your fumes? Fuck off nazi pig.
Is that cloud of diesel fumes from the dump truck in front of me going to affect it?
Phillip
AH, I see, you hate people who can afford cars, and so you use this incident with one of them to justify persecuting those who can barely afford cars.
I don't see how smog sensors are going to punish the guy who you claim attacked you with his car.
But then, why should I expect logic? PRobably this is all jsut a class thing-- you hate people who can afford cars, or nicer cars than you. With liberals thats what it usually is.
At any rate, since you are the one who wants to persecute a class of people-- like the Nazis did the jews-- you're the one who's the Nazi here.
I say, live and let live.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Nobody made you work 30 miles away. Get a job that is closer to your house.
Again, I bike to work every day, because I chose to work at a place that was close by. Highways are highly subsidized. Cars cause a ton of damage to roads, and the repairs are also subsidized.
Bikes cause very little damage. Bikes require less tax subsidies then cars.
Bikes are about as libertarian as you can get.
AH, I see, you hate people who can afford cars, and so you use this incident with one of them to justify persecuting those who can barely afford cars.
No, I use this incident with many of them to justify icensing people to drive cars. You have a right to drive, but you have an obligation to drive responsibly.
I can afford a car, and I actually own a car. I just choose to live a life where I rarely to drive, and I'm really bitter about the amount of taxes we pay for all the fucking roads.
People should drive less.
Yes, you think people should drive less.
Thats waht it boils down to-- forcing people to live according to your desires.
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
This is the thing about government it takes over something that could be done privately and then pits people against each other for the payment of it.
IF we had private roads you would pay less cause you don't use them, and I would pay less because I would be paying a competantly managed company , rather than the incompetantly run government which can't do anything without spending 6 times market price and giving 1/3 the expected value.
When we get socialised health care in this coutnry people will be making the same argument-- we should ban smoking cause they are tired of paying taxes to provide health care to smokers.
One day, I remain hopeful, you guys will realize that it is the government taking over these things that is the root of the problem.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Actually, you made me work 30 miles away by driving out the jobs.
,you want to hold other people responsible "Get a closer job" without knowing anything about thier situation-- maybe two of them have jobs and were only able to get jobs 60 miles apart, so they live as close to their jobs as possible.
ITs funny
You don't care.
You'd ratehr they be unemployed because you don't think they should be allowed to have cars.
Fascist. You don't know the meaning of the word libertarian.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The free speech clause prohibits laws against actions based on the speech component of the action. It does not prohibit restrictions on non-speech components, such as using someone else's printing press without their permission, or blasting one's speech at 100 dB in a residential neighborhood at 3 in the morning. By your argument, both of these would be a fundamental right, since they involve speech.
Similarly, the right to liberty of movement keeps the government from forcing you to stay where you are, but it does not stop it from regulating specfic means of transportation, as long as such regulations are not made on the basis of certain classes of people whom they do not wish to be allowed to travel, or are otherwise intended to abridge the right to liberty.
Driving a vehicle that fills a neighborhood with smog is no different, from a rights perspective, from filling it with high-amplitude sound waves. The fact that some other right was being exercised at the same time is irrelevant.
Besides, freedom of the press in explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution in addition to freedom of speech. :-)
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
For once, we agree.
From my perspective, road subsidies hide the true cost of the roads. Many people think the roads are free, because they don't know where all that tax money goes. A privitized system would help show the true costs. Once people realize the true costs, they will drive less, and taxes will go town. That's what I want.
It might also keep costs down. I don't share your belief that privitized systems are cheaper, but I don't really care if I'm only paying per use.
the average person does NOT walk 5mph. you are obviously talking out your ass and we know it and you know it and you know that we know it. you think the more that you foam at the mouth the more people will believe you
/dev/null.
after reading most of your postings I can see that you have a teenage-mentality emotional development which has never experienced anything in life. you are obviously angry at our government and unable to express yourself properly in debates. you blather on, offering no supporting evidence for your views while disparaging others without listening to them.
$20 says that if you respond to this posting you will say something along the lines of "wtf do you know?" . your inability to give reasoned replies shows you for what you are, someone to filed to
you have a right to drive on the roads that your tax dollars helped pay for. you do not have a right to drive recklessly. the government (that is, we the people, including slashdotters) has the right to protect ourselves by making sure that you are fulfilling your obligation to drive safely and not endanger others, whether it be by drunk driving or whether it be with a p.o.s. that spews oil and exhaust pollutants all over the place. this is for the good of the community, something you obviously do not give a shit about as can be observed from your rantings.
I would continue to speak at length on this issue about your shortcomings but it is obvious that you would not listen and would just respond with what I described above ("wtf do you know?").
I'm good with numbers -
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
For once, we agree. Any actually, I know many flaming-liberal bicyclists who also feel this way.
From my perspective, road subsidies hide the true cost of the roads. If you ask most people how much the roads cust, they will first say the roads are free, because they don't know where all that tax money goes. A privitized system would help show the true costs. Once people realize the true costs, they will drive less. Since they are privitized, taxes will go town. That's what I want.
It might also keep costs down. I don't share your belief that privitized systems are cheaper, but I don't really care if I'm only paying per use.
Actually, you made me work 30 miles away by driving out the jobs.
Jobs are driven out of this country by the globalization of the economy. It's cheaper elsewhere, so jobs go elsewhere.
Myself? I try to buy products that were made locally. My bike, for example, was assembled by a company 30 miles away. I bought it from a locally owned store in my own city. I know many of the bicyle parts were made overseas, but I couldn't find a bike that had alot of locally made parts. My bike-manufacturing friends say that almost all bike parts are made overseas, but alot of bikes are still manufactured locally.
maybe two of them have jobs and were only able to get jobs 60 miles apart,
More likely, you had a choice.
I almost took a higher paying job that was 30 miles away, but I didn't want to work that far away. I chose to wait for a closer opportunity, and ended up with a job that is 6 miles away.
Also, I chose to buy a house in a dense area, because I knew that it would be easier to find a job if I ever got laid off.
If you move out to far away suburbia, don't complain when the jobs are all far away. You made that choice.
you don't think they should be allowed to have cars.
No, I'm saying that you made a choice. Now take responsiblity for the choice, pay your fair share of the roads, and keep your car well maintained so I don't have to deal with your pollution as much.
I chose to get a job locally, even when it paid less then other jobs that were farther away. I ride a bike, by choice, because the social costs are cheaper.
And what happens when you drive by a sensor 5 times a week and it sends you 5 citations at $50 or $100 a pop?
You're either a lier or you didn't even bother to RTFA. The system isn't intended to be used to issue citations. It's meant to be used to identify possible violations and then bring those cars in for an accurate test.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Freedom is being allowed to do what you like, if it doesn't harm another.
So, using your own quote, bikes are more free then cars.
Pollution, from cars, harms me. Bikes don't pollute.
Roads are heavily subsidized. Bikes cause little damage to roads.
Cars are inherantly more dangerous then bikes. If everyone road bikes, we could get rid of most of our traffic safety rules.
Our gas habits require government intervention. We wouldn't be in Iraq right now if Iraq had no oil.
Bikes are libertarian, cars require that we sacrifice our freedom.
As to government owned roads-- that's bullshit-- they decreed themselves the monopolists of roads. We didn't consent to them owning them. And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the post office.)
I think you are missing the point about what the government is - everybody with a vote is responsible for what the government does. They are not as efficient as we would like, but some things are simply better suited to government monopolies. Some things, like national defence, can only work under government control.
As to dumping toxic waste, if you did it at a rate that did not damage my property at all-- eg: you simply idled your car for 10 minutes in the mornings before going to work, no I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Ah, but who ensures that I don't damage your property. Who decides what damage is? Idling my car next door does affect your property. There is no way I can stop pollutants spreading. So where do we draw the line? I might think that it is fine that some of the DDT I want to store next to your house will find its way onto your property. You might not think so. So who gets to decide who is right?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Sorry Bit geek you lose this argument. you mentioned nazis and thus lose by godwins law.
see ya sucker
Veramocor
This is one of the most disturbing posts I've ever seen on slashdot.
We live in a representative democracy,in which citizens agree which rights to give to the inhabitants by chosing elected officials to decide on those rights.
Free speech is a right that people have chosen to give to other people. In this case, people have chosen to take away the right to drive around a car that pollutes the air. I'm not saying it's a morally just or enforcable move, I'm just saying this is what the people have chosen to do.
Cars pollute the air. This is completely irrefutable. They work by combustion, and combustion has side-products, and these side-products are released into our air.
For the record, the laws of this country prohibit the publication of material that the people deem unpublishable. For instance, certain government documents are classified - therefore, they may not be published. Certain treasonous material is illegal. Certain plans or plots or instructions are illegal to publish. You may not agree with this on a fundamental level, but these are the laws of this society.
Grow up. Travel by car is a priviledge just as much as any legal right is a priviledge - only unlegislated freedoms are truly freedoms.
And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the post office.)
I don't know about that, being able to have a letter delivered anywhere in the country within a few days for only $.37 sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I've never had any problems with their service either. I highly doubt any private enterprise could compete at those prices (and yes, I'm aware that no one is doing it now because they're not allowed to; my point is that I doubt they could even if they were allowed to compete).
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
False.
I was not talking about driving someone elses car, I'm talking about driving my own car.
Therefore, the analogy is limiting your ability to print with your own printing press, not someone elses.
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Well, I'm glad to see we agree. Then if some private entity has a road that is causing massive amounts of polution and actual damages to neighboring property, then the neighbors can take it up with them.
Much better than a bunch of people in government trying to regulate what people do. Someone here said you shouldnt' be allowed to live 30 miles from work... totally rediculous.
The thing is government has been taken over by people who want to control other people-- and thus government has become immoral (if it wasn't always).
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Of course you doubt they could-- you have the undying faith in the government our socialist system indoctrinated you into having.
And so you do nothing, while you're right to have that letter delivered in 2 days instead of 10, for only $0.12 is usurped.
Furthermore, the argument can't be made that without the government doing it it wouldn't have gotten done--when the government took over this service and pushed everyone out, there were people already providing the service.
The reason the government took it over was to control what was said! TO prevent people from sending political mail the government didn't agree with! They don't do this anymore, but that was the reason we have the US Postal Service.
Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner if you want to know why the US Postal service is unconstitutional... and it will give you a good perspective on teh constitution in general.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You have apparently never read the constitution-- that's disturbing!
Citizens do not vote on rights... they do not have the moral authority, and the constitution DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
Rights are inherent, recognized by the constitution, but not granted by the constitution... and certainly cannot be voted away because a bunch of ignorant idiots decide they want to force peopel to live another way.
Get educated and grow up. You don't have the right to force people to live according to your lifestyle... so stop trying.
Travel by car is an inherent human right, recognized by the constitution in the 9th ammendment.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Godwins law is for those who are too stupid to recognize that the Nazis really did exist. But its true. The Nazis are a historical fact. Therefore, accurate comparisons to them are logically valid.
You have conceded the argument because you are apparently too historically ignorant to make an actual counter argument.
The Nazis did exist. Godwins "law" is the resort of the ignorant and the racist who cannot handle making a counter argument.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
If it weren't for government having taken over this job--- soemthing the founding fathers warned against! They EXPLICITLY wanted the national defense to not be part of the federal government! -- we wouldn't be adventuring out to settle our presidents personal score.
Everything government does, is a violation of human rights. Government cannot exist without violating human rights. Whenever you advocate the g overnment doing something, if you look closely you'll see you are advocating the violation of human rights.
This is why this country was set up to be a country with very minimal government...
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You're just making shit up and presuming its true.
Not much point in arguing with someone who lacks any understanding of economics. (Blaming globalization for the loss of jobs is just ignorant.)
Anyway, the bottom line is you want to force peopel to live based on your idea of what their lifesyle should be. Typical socialist fascism.
You oppose human rights and there's no point in arguing with you about the details-- at the end of the day, you want to initiate violence on people who don't meet your approval. (After all, that's what citations for people who's cars aren't expensive enough is.)
There's no point in continuing to respond.... I will never accept the oppression you advocate.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Doesn't say so in the US Constitution, and I don't particularly agree with you. I agree that it is a valuable goal to allow people to travel unhindered, however:
* I don't really want the serial killer imprisoned at the local jail to have the freedom to travel where he wants.
* I don't really want random folks to have the ability to travel onto nuclear silo ground.
* I don't think that having completely open borders between all countries would be a good idea.
I can claim that almost anything is a "fundamental human right. Doesn't make it so.
May we never see th
>Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
But you know something? I grew up, and learned things. And I realized that it's a lot more complicated than that, and attacking the problem with the mentality of a simpleton is part of how the problem got as bad as it is.
So grow up, and learn a few things. Especially stop swallowing all the big-L Libertarian and Randroid dogma that you're substituting for a thought process.
Given California's pollution problems, finding ways to remove the gross polluters (the low-hanging fruit) means a huge savings because you can avoid having to eke out the fractional-percent in the remaining available improvements in other things. This is what cost-efficiency is about.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
And a troll. I hope you get a few troll mods, you deserve them.
- that the utopia will be achieved when people will just go to court to recover damages for any act which hurts them, and
- that this system will get rid of bans, regulations or taxes.
The hidden assumption with regard to clean air regulations is that emissions of particulates, oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, VOCs and the like are harmless. It's easy to prove that this assumption is false (ask anyone who lived through the "killer fog" in London, public health researchers looking at Mexico City, or just read the research on particulates and mortality rates); from this it follows that the advocates of positions which rely on it are deluded, lying, or victims of disinformation. Enough of them.Given that the harm exists, the anarchist would go to court to obtain damages, perhaps with an injunction against future transgressions. The court would of course allow everyone affected to sue as a class, and recover damages or obtain an injunction as a group.
The immediate result would be to have a judicially-imposed pollution tax, pollution regulatory regime, or both. Rather than allow such important matters to be decided by judges, people would quickly get together and agree how much harm was acceptable and either mete out allowances for producing it or tax the emissions with the proceeds used to compensate the victims. This would immediately re-create the very government that the anarchists claim is inimical to human rights and progress... except that people would have (re)created it for the specific purpose of securing human rights and creating progress.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Regarding other pollutants, on-road vehicles account for a shade under a third of all nitrogen oxide emissions too (albeit a large fraction of that comes from diesels), and so far as VOCs are concerned road vehicles are just about equal to all processes involving solvents (each being a bit under a third of the total) with most of that coming from cars and light trucks.
It amuses me to see someone whose favorite epithet is best applied to the face that greets them in the mirror in the morning.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
We tried this several years ago in Arizona. They had vans they rolled out with equipment on the entrances to the freeway system. As you rolled over a wire, a sensor would take a sniff and snap your photo. I think that the policy was to only issue a demand for inspection after 12 of these tests were failed. I haven't seen the vans around in some time (the last couple of years). If I had to guess why, I'd say it was probably because they weren't very effective or accurate.
The constitution was voted on, and can be changed. I missed something that you learned last week in Government 101, perhaps?
Trampling my right to travel is not a requirement for clean air.
You people are so fucking stupid, that articulating simple concepts into yet even smaller bite sized chunks is becoming a pain in the ass. Quit watching so much television and pay attention to the world around you so you will be more able to discuss it with the people around you.
Stupid motherfuckers everywhere, wake the fuck up.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
context:
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
Trying to debunk "debunk" my rights as a human being? You're a human being too. Damn, what an idiot.
The government doesn't have the rigth to license cars or drivers, let alone put environmental restrictiosn on them.
Sure "it" does. That's because the government is all of us: government by the people and for the people. Our government is a way by which we agree how to behave towards one another. And you can bet that most people want cars licensed and polluters off the road.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Freedom of movement is not the same as being allowed to drive whatever polluting gas guzzler you like. Travel on foot or by bicycle. Once you start spewing noxious chemicals, other people have a right to stop you.
Just to make it clear, this is not the person you said would reply with the "wtf do you know?" comment.
But, really, what the hell do you know?
You're right, the average walking speed isn't 5 mph, its about 3-4 mph, which means it wouldn't take him 12 hours to walk to and from work, it would take him between 15 and 20 hours to get to work.
So yes, the guy was wrong, but his ballpark figure was right. now he only gets 4 to 9 hours a day to eat, sleep, and work. If he can walk 30 miles in an hour or 2, he would be blowing all other walkers away in the Olympic speed walking competitions.
Oh, and by the way, "you blather on, offering no supporting evidence for your views while disparaging others without listening to them."
Tried to post this earlier, so sorry for the possible redundancy... I agree with your qualifications: placing the sensors on entrance ramps helps eliminate the multiple car problem, and continuously sensoring helps determine differential pollution levels.
I still think it stinks as policy. Consider the difference between this scheme and red-light cameras. When a car goes through a red-light camera, the camera takes a picture of the car as it is going through the red light. The car has been "caught in the act" of a clear violation of the law. Hence, the citation and the fine.
By contrast, CHiP's pollution scheme has no way to definitively connect the car with the crime. Yes, the sensor shows a crime has been committed. And yes, the camera has caught the car unfortunate enough to be at the scene of the crime.
But no proof is ever offered that the car in the picture is in fact the one responsible for the crime.
The state knows this. Therefore, they do not levy a fine as a penalty for getting caught, because they know that a conviction would never hold up in court. So instead, they have a weaselly way of getting around reasonable doubt: as a penalty for getting caught, you have to come in and prove your innocence!
What happens if my car turns out to be clean? Will the government reimburse me for my time? Never! For the cost of the inspection? Unlikely.
It turns out that these automated enforcement plans are money-makers. Here in Maryland and DC, red-light cameras have become a scam (placed at lucrative, rather than dangerous, intersections, etc.). This scheme is no different.
I hope it dies, because it seems like nothing more than an end-run around due process.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
But I thought you had a Right To Travel, laws be damned?
In any case, I see you ignored the other analogy, of blasting your speech at a high volume, using amplification equipment that you own, of course. :-)
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
Which constitution are you talking about? The U.S. constitution gives the states the right to regulate pollution (which is what this is about; it has nothing to do with travel) by way of the 10th amendment. The California constitution, like most state constitutions, does not follow the limited powers model of the U.S. constitution, but rather says what the government cannot do.
The only reason that Congress is restricted in the way it is is to establish a separation of powers between the states and the federal government. If this were being done by the federal government, you might have a point, but it's not, and so you don't.
you know, I could flame you, like BitGeek's rantings, but I won't. it seems apparent that you do not know how to distinguish between personal attacks on a person and on the views that they are trying to present as evidence. I offered no supporting evidence for my views because I did not need them. I was presenting nothing as fact, it was inherently being stated as opinion since I did not try to establish it as fact.
If you could not see the fact that BitGeek was all riled up and foaming at the mouth just to say anything to anyone who crossed his point of view, then may I suggest you either: (1) re-read his posts, or (2) take advanced reading classes and classes in advanced psychology that will allow you to interpret what he is really attempting to say, as opposed to what you are hearing.
I'm good with numbers -
As to modes of transportation, at various times I walk, drive, bicycle, and take the bus. Mr./Ms. Bicyclist, do you yield to pedestrians? I can't count the number of times on foot that I have almost been smashed into by dudes on bikes running red lights against the walk light I have patiently waited for across a busy campus intersection. Oh, and since I don't bicycle that much, I am probably much heavier than you are, and if you ever hit me on your bike you may not knock me down, and you will probably get me really mad at you and since I weigh more I will get the idea that I can take you on.
I perfectly agree that he was all riled up, and I pretty much don't agree with any of his arguments, but I was just trying to show that what you did by responding to him (in that manner), was essentially exactly what he was doing (and exactly what I was doing). Every once in a while it is fun to stoop to another's level, but it doesn't make you look any better than the other guy. I was also going for a little bit of humour, but apparantly that didn't really get through.
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
Government-provided national defense is allowed under the constitution. Going on the offensive in a dubious "war on terrorism" is not. The problem is politicians allowing popular opinion to drive unconstitutional public policy. Not only that, Congress was caught with their pants down with the PATRIOT Act. They are doing things that they think represent their constituencies rather than doing things that really do represent their constituencies, and, in a way, they are defeating the benefits of representative government (too worried about re-election, I guess).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
A signifigant amount of pollution does come from cars.
Stories about Mexico City and LA are decent examples. From a property rights point of view, there are strong arguments in favor of developing technology that pollutes as little as possible (not necessarily forced by legislation but by a fear of liability).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The constitution was voted on, and can be changed.
This has worked very well in instances where rights were added (repealing prohibiltion, emancipation of slaves, voting rights) and has failed miserably when rights were taken away (federal income tax).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I wonder about how long these things will work without maintenance before they clog up. I mean, nice summer day, clean roads, it will be fine. But throw in some dirt+rain=mud, or even snow, and they aren't going to last long. The article is sitting on "Loading" still so I guess that I won't be able to check up on the article, but I'd it a somewhat safe assumption that the devices have to be somewhat near ground-level in order to pick up significant readings.
Assume the sensors work. Great, so you catch a pollutor... what next? They get a citation or recommendation in the mail. Is there a recourse or punishment for non-compliance, or do they just collect citations until their required emissions test?
Further, what about vehicles that are exempt from current emmisions tests, like Mack trucks. Semis and other large vehicles produce a lot more emmisions than smaller cars, and they're often exempt from emmisions tests (I'm not sure about California).
There are also diesel-fueled vehicles. They produce less emissions pound-wise, but the types of chemicals they produce are worse for the environment. Different grading scheme?
Wouldn't the money spent on researching the sensors be better spent on improving current fuel usage?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTre ason.html
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Apparently you've never read the constitution, or you'd recognize that the constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes them.
It recognizes the right to travel in the 9th ammendment, part of the bill of rights.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Check your premises.
What's the point of trying to argue against an argument based on false premises? There is none.
Course your audience, who never checks premises, confuses a logical conclusion from false premises to be "truth". I guess that's what you're counting on.
Just once I'd like to see a argument against libertarianism from someone who actually understood it.
The hidden assumption is not even an assumption at all, let alone hidden. It is a statement too broad to be true or false, as sometimes it is true and sometimes it is false.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You advocate the war on Iraq while opposing it. After all, the majority of the representatives from the party who's presidential candidate you voted for last election voted for the war on Iraq, and explicitly did so in violation of the constitution (Which requires a declaration of war).
The founding fathers, the framers of the constittuion, did not want a standing army! They were explicit on that. Get very clear- they did not want a standing army, no navy, no marines, no national guard. They wanted a militia of the people-- which is MUCH HARDER to be adventurous in the middle east with.
You support a standing army, and you oppose the constitution and liberty.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
On the contrary, when it comes to the bill of rights, the constitution trumps state constitutions.
States cannot take away rights. The right to travel is a right guaranteed in the 9th ammendment.
Plus, its yet another really STOOPID idea, as I've pointed out already. And it will work to increase pollution, not decrease it.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I'm glad to see you both oppose human rights and endorse government violations of them.
At least your consistent.
Seriously, though, if government was "of the people" than my simple disagreement would be all that's necessary to stop the process.
Instead of a government subserviant to the will of the people, we have a failed democracy that has let government get out of control.
A moral government would require unanimous consent. And if you think that means it would take a long time to get anything done-- you're right! Government doesn't need to move any faster either-- in fact, that change alone would eliminate poverty in this country, and a whole lot of other problems you guys claim to want to fight, but in the end endorse the expansion of.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Ok, hotshot, go for it. Get a constitutional amendment, and then we can talk.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
What right is California taking away here? The right to pollute? Is that guaranteed by the 9th Amendment too? Since you chose not to respond to my point that this has nothing to do with regulating travel, surely it can't be that...
Plus, its yet another really STOOPID idea, as I've pointed out already. And it will work to increase pollution, not decrease it.
It may very well be a stupid idea, but that doesn't make it Unconstitutional. After all, stupidity must be protected by the 9th Amendment too, right? :-)
The right being violated is the right to travel.
The emissions standards in most states (and certainly california) have nothing to do with pollution. They are far more stringent than is reasonable.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23