But an unexpected panic stop at 65mph with a 40 ton 18 wheeler right behind you could be fatal - even if he has this magic thought-control system, the laws of physics guarantee that your small car will stop faster than his heavy truck.
If the trucker driver isn't tailgating (driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible), it won't be a problem.
The methods I've seen for computing the "true cost" of gas vary wildly. Here's an example...If you read that paper you'll surely agree with me that it's ludicrous. Maybe you have a more rational example in mind.
Yes, it's near the beginning of this thread, here.
Maybe you could, you know, let people buy the vehicles they want to buy and then if gas is expensive most won't buy gas guzzlers?
First, we would need to internalize the negative externalities of gasoline usage into the price of gasoline. For example, air pollution costs us up to $1600 per person annually.
Bandwidth caps should be taken away during those times when usage is low, similar to cell phone plans with free unlimited nights and weekends. Then you could schedule your movie downloads for the wee hours and watch them the next day.
If we want to improve education, we need to evaluate teachers using the value-added model.
Because value-added models can control for other factors impacting student test scores, the most important being whether a student arrived in a teacher's classroom several grade levels behind, this method of analysis can offer a more accurate estimate of how well a particular teacher is teaching than simply looking at the latest set of student test scores. (source)
Once we have an accurate assessment of each teacher, we could pay them accordingly and/or let the poorly performing teachers go.
Unfortunetly it is a captive market. You cannot just go take someone elses tollway if the tolls are too high.
So instead, you drive when traffic congestion, and therefore also the tolls, are lower. Or you carpool, splitting the cost with someone else. Or you take mass transit. Or you ride a bike. Or you walk.
The great thing about variable tolls is that not only do they permanently eliminate traffic congestion (saving a LOT of money on freeway expansions), they also give people the opportunity to pay less for the roads than they do with taxes.
In my area, the problem is more cyclists who hop two-lane roads with 45mph speed limits and take up the lane going 10mph.
That's perfectly legal in certain situations. For example, if there's no traffic, or if the lane is a "substandard width lane."
I'm all for treating cyclists equally, and if a car got decided to consume the only lane with no intention of going even a quarter the speed of the flow of traffic, then I would be justified in honking at them.
In what state is it legal to honk at someone just because they inconvenienced you? Not in California.
Cyclists are supposed to be riding on the shoulder and if traffic is slow enough for them to be passing you, well you're in a traffic jam and they do not have to pull out into traffic to get around you.
There is no such law that says cyclists should ride on the shoulder. Maybe you mean the bike lane?
Even then, there are some good and legal reasons to venture out of the bike lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or when preparing to make a left turn, or to avoid being on the right side of right-turning traffic. And the requirement to ride in the bike lane only applies as long as the bicyclist is traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.
If you do some research about where and how they mine the minerals to make the batteries for those cars then you'll find out it's more destructive to the environment than a regular car, not to mention that much of the electricity in the USA is still produced from polluting sources.
When I commute, I want to be able to glance at a gasoline usage meter and see how much I've used up to that point and how it compares to the same point on previous commutes. Then I can compete against myself, similar to the "ghost" in Mario Kart.
The car would already have the map, so in theory it could look at the signs, figure out where it is, and drive all the way to the destination without ever acquiring a GPS lock.
The first is actually simple to solve. You can make a grid of gps coordinates and assign a speed to each.
What if GPS isn't working?
As far as a left turn into a busy street goes, the car could send a signal to central that it needs to turn and the cars could be slowed to allow a space.
What if people are driving those cars?
I just wish people would use the automation already available, cruise control. Set a goddamned speed and stay there.
If everybody set the same speed, and everybody's cruise controls were perfectly calibrated, then that would work.
Cars that drive themselves have the potential to be virtually crash-proof, even under adverse conditions. We'll wonder why we ever allowed ourselves to drive in the first place.
Until then, it will be interesting to see what deficiencies in our road designs and traffic laws these self-driving cars discover. For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is? Faced with trying to make a left turn onto a road with a steady stream of traffic, will the car just wait forever, or will it find another way, even when local laws prevent any maneuvers that could get it out of the jam?
However in terms of a carbon tax with a price that is being negotiated in the 10s of cents per tonne...
If by "10s of cents per ton" you meant $23-26 per ton, then you would be correct.
A quick calculation shows that turning off the lights (20 kW total) at my workplace on nights and weekends would save 88 hours of electricity per week, which at.0005883 tons/kWh comes to 54 tons of CO2 per year. With the carbon tax, this amounts to $1200-1400 per year.
And that's just the lights. Turning off other appliances could save much more. Factories, bakeries, and so on have much more potential to save money through the carbon tax than ordinary office buildings. Incentives matter!
Hmmm spend $millions on R&D, or simply increase the price of your product at a time when everyone is doing the same thing?
It doesn't take $millions in R&D to figure out that you should turn the lights out when you leave the building.
Simple measures like this will allow you to save energy and pollution and taxes, and thereby put you at a competitive advantage in the market. The carbon tax gives you that extra incentive to do so.
Are you thinking of countries where the users pay the full the cost of the roads through tolls and gas taxes and other user fees, or governments that don't build roads?
Slashdot Mirror
If the trucker driver isn't tailgating (driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible), it won't be a problem.
Yes, it's near the beginning of this thread, here.
First, we would need to internalize the negative externalities of gasoline usage into the price of gasoline. For example, air pollution costs us up to $1600 per person annually.
Another problem is that road wear is proportional to the 4th power of the vehicle weight, while gasoline usage (and therefore gas taxes) is more linear.
Once people start paying the full costs of driving, then they can start making rational choices about which car to drive.
Bandwidth caps should be taken away during those times when usage is low, similar to cell phone plans with free unlimited nights and weekends. Then you could schedule your movie downloads for the wee hours and watch them the next day.
Once we have an accurate assessment of each teacher, we could pay them accordingly and/or let the poorly performing teachers go.
So instead, you drive when traffic congestion, and therefore also the tolls, are lower. Or you carpool, splitting the cost with someone else. Or you take mass transit. Or you ride a bike. Or you walk.
The great thing about variable tolls is that not only do they permanently eliminate traffic congestion (saving a LOT of money on freeway expansions), they also give people the opportunity to pay less for the roads than they do with taxes.
The problem of dumping too much traffic onto city streets is avoided by setting the exit toll to the market equilibrium rate.
Similarly, the problem of congestion on adjacent freeways is also avoided by setting the per-mile toll to the market equilibrium rate.
Allowed to work, the market actually does a pretty good job of avoiding shortages, including the kind known as "traffic congestion."
Then you must not live in an area with farm vehicles.
That's perfectly legal in certain situations. For example, if there's no traffic, or if the lane is a "substandard width lane."
In what state is it legal to honk at someone just because they inconvenienced you? Not in California.
There is no such law that says cyclists should ride on the shoulder. Maybe you mean the bike lane?
Even then, there are some good and legal reasons to venture out of the bike lane, such as when the bike lane is full of debris, or when preparing to make a left turn, or to avoid being on the right side of right-turning traffic. And the requirement to ride in the bike lane only applies as long as the bicyclist is traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.
When a bicyclist obeys the law, unfortunately nobody ever remembers it. How often do you remember a motorist who obeys the law?
Heating the entire cabin just to prevent frost on the windshield is a waste of energy.
Not from inside the car!
False.
Wear extra layers. You should be bringing them anyway in case you have a flat tire.
When I commute, I want to be able to glance at a gasoline usage meter and see how much I've used up to that point and how it compares to the same point on previous commutes. Then I can compete against myself, similar to the "ghost" in Mario Kart.
The car would already have the map, so in theory it could look at the signs, figure out where it is, and drive all the way to the destination without ever acquiring a GPS lock.
What if GPS isn't working?
What if people are driving those cars?
If everybody set the same speed, and everybody's cruise controls were perfectly calibrated, then that would work.
How will the car determine whether the area is urban or rural, given only what it can see with its cameras? What if the GPS isn't working that day?
Cars that drive themselves have the potential to be virtually crash-proof, even under adverse conditions. We'll wonder why we ever allowed ourselves to drive in the first place.
Until then, it will be interesting to see what deficiencies in our road designs and traffic laws these self-driving cars discover. For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is? Faced with trying to make a left turn onto a road with a steady stream of traffic, will the car just wait forever, or will it find another way, even when local laws prevent any maneuvers that could get it out of the jam?
...because with streaming, I only have to wait about 5 seconds before I can start watching the movie.
If by "10s of cents per ton" you meant $23-26 per ton, then you would be correct.
A quick calculation shows that turning off the lights (20 kW total) at my workplace on nights and weekends would save 88 hours of electricity per week, which at .0005883 tons/kWh comes to 54 tons of CO2 per year. With the carbon tax, this amounts to $1200-1400 per year.
And that's just the lights. Turning off other appliances could save much more. Factories, bakeries, and so on have much more potential to save money through the carbon tax than ordinary office buildings. Incentives matter!
It doesn't take $millions in R&D to figure out that you should turn the lights out when you leave the building.
Simple measures like this will allow you to save energy and pollution and taxes, and thereby put you at a competitive advantage in the market. The carbon tax gives you that extra incentive to do so.
And will find ways ("innovation") to pollute less so they don't have to pay so much in taxes.
Are you thinking of countries where the users pay the full the cost of the roads through tolls and gas taxes and other user fees, or governments that don't build roads?