With a theme park, at least, you can also choose to avoid the place entirely... a bit different from compulsory education settings, or mandatory car tracking.
You can choose to avoid car tracking. Remember, cars aren't people. (We tend to forget that.)
Cutting spending is a good idea, but I'm not sure how the public would react to shutting down road lanes and stopping road construction projects until the gas tax fully pays for the roads instead of only 65% of the cost.
The gas tax doesn't work very well to pay for the cost of the roads because the relationship between road wear and gasoline consumption isn't linear. Owners of smaller vehicles pay disproportionally more in gas taxes than owners of larger vehicles.
This makes the erroneous assumption that only those things are worthy of attention of government that a large percentage of the public agrees with... If 25000 people bother to petition the White House about some issue, the president's staff should damned well pay attention and consider it.
I suggest a compromise. 10,000 votes plus 25% of a random sampling.
Instead of material shielding, which requires massive amounts of material, or magnetic deflection, which requires massive amounts of energy, I'm hoping for material deflection. It could be built into solar panels deployed outside the spacecraft and oriented to deflect cosmic radiation away from habitable areas of the craft.
It's a good idea, but it could be better. Instead of creating an incentive for people to drive, distribute the revenues evenly not just to licensed drivers but to everyone, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and mass transit riders.
If you're going to put that in, than I also demand something about people cruising 20mph under while in the inside lane...
Why can't you change lanes to pass?
There are obstruction-of-traffic laws against driving slowly in the inside lane, but these aren't enforced because if others can change lanes to pass, nobody's really obstructing anyone.
But on the Autobahn, it's illegal to pass in the outside lane, so people driving slowly in the inside lane really are obstructing traffic. For this reason, would you be in favor of a "no passing in the outside lane" law?
If I'm driving a Lotus Elise and someone else is driving an old VW Beetle towing a camping trailer, does that mean that they aren't allowed to follow as closely as me?
Correct.
If so, why should I be discriminated against based on what car I drive (and therefore my socio-economic status)?
The problem is that whether red light or speeding cameras improve safety is unclear. What we need are tailgating cameras. When people stop 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"), they will stop colliding with others who slam on their brakes. This will dramatically improve the safety of other traffic enforcement cameras and justify their existence.
Or incapacitate. In many situations, guns are more efficient at incapacitating than other tools such as tasers. Therefore, guns are often the best tool for the job, even though the result might be a death.
If we're going to be concerned about the taxpayer burden of the administration costs of the red light cameras, then it only makes sense to subtract the fines.
The IIHS study you cite in Philadelphia...they don't mention it in the study but crashes went up after installation of red light cameras.
That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.
Slashdot Mirror
You can choose to avoid car tracking. Remember, cars aren't people. (We tend to forget that.)
Why not do it electronically? You wouldn't even have to stop.
Cutting spending is a good idea, but I'm not sure how the public would react to shutting down road lanes and stopping road construction projects until the gas tax fully pays for the roads instead of only 65% of the cost.
The gas tax doesn't work very well to pay for the cost of the roads because the relationship between road wear and gasoline consumption isn't linear. Owners of smaller vehicles pay disproportionally more in gas taxes than owners of larger vehicles.
That's easy. If you've driven an unusually high number of miles without filling up in-state, you were probably out of state.
I suggest a compromise. 10,000 votes plus 25% of a random sampling.
Slashdot just covered this topic here.
Instead of material shielding, which requires massive amounts of material, or magnetic deflection, which requires massive amounts of energy, I'm hoping for material deflection. It could be built into solar panels deployed outside the spacecraft and oriented to deflect cosmic radiation away from habitable areas of the craft.
Municipalities should take over the physical wires and allow each customer to choose which ISP to connect them to.
There's nothing for the train to hit in densely populated areas, because the rail line is grade separated.
But don't eat the meat.
On an unrelated note, have you ever noticed how ethnic restaurants tend to be located right next to animal hospitals?
It's a good idea, but it could be better. Instead of creating an incentive for people to drive, distribute the revenues evenly not just to licensed drivers but to everyone, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and mass transit riders.
Why can't you change lanes to pass?
There are obstruction-of-traffic laws against driving slowly in the inside lane, but these aren't enforced because if others can change lanes to pass, nobody's really obstructing anyone.
But on the Autobahn, it's illegal to pass in the outside lane, so people driving slowly in the inside lane really are obstructing traffic. For this reason, would you be in favor of a "no passing in the outside lane" law?
Did you know that motorists violate the right of way of pedestrians more often than the other way around?
And there's at least as much evidence to the contrary.
"Too close" is "a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible".
Correct.
Poor people don't own camping trailers, silly!
The problem is that whether red light or speeding cameras improve safety is unclear. What we need are tailgating cameras. When people stop 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"), they will stop colliding with others who slam on their brakes. This will dramatically improve the safety of other traffic enforcement cameras and justify their existence.
Or incapacitate. In many situations, guns are more efficient at incapacitating than other tools such as tasers. Therefore, guns are often the best tool for the job, even though the result might be a death.
That's only an issue of liquidity.
No, but you will raise the value of the company, which has the same effect.
Then you would prefer that all denominations were paper money, right? 5 cent bill, 10 cent bill, 25 cent bill, etc.
In two's complement, sure. But this is Slashdot, pedantry is allowed, even encouraged.
If we're going to be concerned about the taxpayer burden of the administration costs of the red light cameras, then it only makes sense to subtract the fines.
That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.
How much does each red light camera earn each day in moving violation fines?