Actually, you don't need to enforce it consistently. You get as much compliance, but at a lower cost, if you haphazardly enforce it. If the driver doesn't know when it will be enforced, they will comply. It only takes the possibility of being caught that triggers the behavior.
Given various technologies like radar detectors and the Waze app, many drivers believe that they do have information about when it is being enforce.
Yes, and when the radar detector beeps, what do the drivers do? They slow down to the speed limit.
Fuel consumption is just a function of gear ratios. 60mph is the best speed for fuel consumption right now because it is a good average of common highway speed limits. If speed limits change (up or down,) car makers will compensate.
That might be true on a dynometer, where you are simply measuring output, but that only describes the most efficient a motor can be. In the real world aerodynamic pressures are vastly different at higher speeds than lower speeds regardless of the gear ratio. The typical SUV or truck starts experiencing more and more wind resistance as speeds go over 45mph. The problem isn't gearing, but wind resistance. RPMs move up in a straight line where as resistance is geometric. It is a losing battle, regardless of the gear ratio. It isn't a problem that manufacturing can accomplish, it is basic physics. It also is a problem not unique to cars, but aircraft, too.
You are quoting research that a graduate student of mine actually helped produce (not the original, but the followup in 1997), but you are missing the point. Yes, people will drive at speeds they are comfortable with, that is not in dispute. However, that is assuming there is no enforcement of existing limits. The research shows that if enforcement is factored in, most people will drive within five miles of the speed limit. It further shows, that this leads to a more consistent speed among all drivers on a given stretch of road and as such improves the number of vehicles per mile per hour per given stretch.
You are correct, posting speed limits does not affect overall speed. That is, unless those speed limits are actually enforced. If you aren't going to enforce them, then why post them.
It should be simple to understand that rules without consequences don't change behavior. OTOH, removing consequences tends to encourage the behavior the rule was meant to address, which is where we are today with speed limits.
The reality is that the faster vehicles go, the longer they take to stop or if the driver is distracted the further the vehicle travels until attention is focused. Couple that with the aging population, where reaction time is decreasing, and you have a recipe for disaster. One solution, albeit very costly, is to force people into driving autonomous vehicles. Of course, that will take years before they are ready and in sufficient quantity to make a difference (look at the hybrids, even government subsidies weren't enough to get sufficient people to buy them where they were economical and they were vastly cheaper than autonomous vehicles are expected to be). Or, a simpler solution, available today and proven to work is to enforce the traffic laws.
Again, I agree, just changing the number on the sign won't change peoples speed habits. However, enforcing the number on the sign has been proven to do so.
Actually, it does none of that. Police used to issue traffic violations and speeding tickets without having traps. They would just be cruising on their patrol route and if they saw an infraction, they pulled the person over. What has changed, however, is that police staffing has been reduced because of erosion of tax basis and there are now fewer officers per 1,000 citizens and those remaining officers are tasked with other things than traffic. In short, with reduced funding the police have to choose between protecting property or streets and property wins. Police traps, at least in the US, didn't become really popular until the 1980s when budget cuts were enacted under the guise of trickle down economics. This left many police (and fire) departments under funded. So the police turned to traps, not because they are more effective, but because they are cheaper.
If you want safe traffic, somebody has to enforce it because, one only has to look at the speeds people are driving and the lights they drive through to see that individuals don't follow the rules without a consequence. OTOH, if you are okay with the current state of things, then nothing needs to be done.
Except that the laws people are talking about autonomous vehicles being different are speed, stop lights/signs, etc. The only law that changed is not about autonomous vehicles but about the drivers of autonomous vehicles not having to be in direct control. For instance, even in states that have allowed them, the "driver" must still be behind the wheel ready to take over. That law change is about the operator of the vehicle, not about what the vehicle is allowed to do on the roadways.
Picture Uber, but with all the cars owned by a handful of people, and no drivers involved. So... basically an automated taxi system instead of a manual one where the dispatcher does their best to screw over the drivers.
As I recall Uber has already publicly voiced their intention to go that route as soon as it becomes possible.
You really think Donald Trump or his buddies is going to allow his expensive autonomous vehicle to go out during the day when he doesn't need it to let others ride in it? I'm curious how many uber drivers drive luxury autos now? Because, that is what autonomous vehicles will be.
And, if uber does go that route, with their own vehicles, well, then they aren't uber any more, but just a cab company named uber.
A better and more practical solution would be to enforce the existing motor vehicle laws until the majority of the vehicles are autonomous.
So, we should enforce distracted driving laws on driverless cars?
The fact that an car is even allowed to be driverless is an exception to existing motor vehicle laws. Once you take that step, the rest is details.
Usually rear ending somebody at a traffic light is not from a distracted driver. It's just the opposite. The driver realizes the light is about to change and accelerates, but not expecting the lead vehicle to stop.
As for your last statement, no, driverless cars are not an exception to motor vehicle laws. States that are allowing them have passed motor vehicle laws to do so. As such, driverless cars fall, where allowed, fall under the motor vehicle code for that state.
Ironically, yes. More cops enforcing the traffic laws will make non-autonomous vehicles safer to operate. Since these non-autonomous vehicles are what are causing the high accident rate with autonomous vehicles, then the autonomous vehicles will be safer to operate, too. It's simple if a then b; if b then c; therefore if a then c.
Busses are commercial vehicles. So, yes, there are different rules in existence for commercial and personal vehicles, including the requirements to obtain and keep a license to operate them.
Perhaps only the wealthy will OWN automated cars, it has been pointed out several times that automated cars will mark the decline of car ownership in general.
Uber-like services will be the new norm where you can get a ride anywhere you want any time you want.
In this case, I don't think it is unreasonable to have two sets of rules. One for people who want to stay "manual" and one for automated drivers. Sort of like how insurance costs more if you are a risky driver.
If autonomous vehicles cause most people to go without cars, then there won't be uber. If there isn't uber, then how will people get around, unless you increase public transportation. As for insurance, if an autonomous vehicle is twice as likely to be rear ended than a non-autonomous vehicle, then the insurance will be higher on the autonomous vehicle.
Of course, most people already think there are two sets of rules. Those that apply to them and those that apply to everybody else.
From TFA: "They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes".
If this is in fact the dominant accident mode, I would suggest that this is not such a big deal and will, over the long term, be self-correcting as the insurance rates for idiot non-automated drivers shoot up because they can't get it through their thick skulls not to tailgate other vehicles.
Unless you live in a no fault state and each person is responsible for the damage to their vehicle.
Another post form an AC about an anonymous study. You would think that if this study were true, that cities would want to know. The reality is that cities tend to heavily enforce traffic laws because the real data shows that if you don't it leads to grid lock, accidents and congestion. But, maybe some AC really knows more about it than the collective body of work that shows otherwise.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are. Perhaps, driving like an idiot in all sorts of unpredictable ways is the right approach to reducing accidents in a system that presently dominated by idiots driving in all sorts of unpredictable ways?
Actually, that's not what the article stated. The overall accident rate for autonomous vehicles is lower than human vehicles. However, the likelihood of your vehicle being hit by a vehicle driven by a human is twice as high if you drive an autonomous vehicle.
The other issue, which has not been tested yet, is how will the autonomous vehicles fair against different manufacturers who have developed their own AI? It is much more predictable to program all AI cars to obey the traffic laws than to have each manufacturer program their own exceptions. Even if the exceptions are standardized, there wills till be differences. For instance, traffic laws are standardized, but there are differences in how humans react to situations. As soon as you add the ability for each AI system to interpret what is safe and to override the traffic laws, you inject unpredictability. And that will increase accidents, even for AI cars.
If your goal is really to usher in autonomous vehicles, then instead of programming them to drive in unpredictable manner like people do, it would be better to train people to follow the same rules as the autonomous vehicles. You do this by enforcing the traffic laws.
They might have to allow them to break the law. Studies have found that cities would grind to a halt if everyone holds to the law. The only other way is to get mathematicians to design the road so that dead locks are not possible.
Citation please. Most major cities do hold people to the law -- trying sitting in an intersection in Manhattan when the light is red and see what happens. City traffic depends on people obeying the law because of the high density. Highway engineers will tell you that congestion in city streets and highways is not related to speed limit, unless set very low. For safety, higher speeds mean increased distance between vehicles, so fewer vehicles per mile than lower speeds. Higher speeds also means traffic flow is more reactionary to slight changes in speed of vehicles ahead, which actually creates more congestion.
Computer modeling at the University of Michigan shows that the ideal highway speed is around 60 for the most vehicles per hour without incident. It also is the best speed for fuel consumption and reduces wear and tear on the pavement.
This should go both ways. People will need to adapt to the way automated vehicles drive (this would be helped by labeling them so they are easy to spot). Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
If your goal is to give privilege to the wealthy who will be able to afford autonomous vehicles than this would certainly do it. The rich, riding in these new vehicles, will get special rules related to operating a vehicle in traffic compared to the rest of us. Then, in addition, if there is an accident where a regular car hits an autonomous vehicle, it will be the regular drivers fault because the autonomous vehicle wasn't breaking the law in what it was doing.
A better and more practical solution would be to enforce the existing motor vehicle laws until the majority of the vehicles are autonomous. You know the old adage about Lady Justice being blind and the law applies equally to all people.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason then a lot of drivers won't respect it, and unless you can and will enforce that limit strongly and consistently, that is unlikely to change. Putting the remaining drivers -- those who do want to be responsible and safe -- in a position where they have to choose between breaking the law and driving as safely as possible, is bad law-making.
Actually, you don't need to enforce it consistently. You get as much compliance, but at a lower cost, if you haphazardly enforce it. If the driver doesn't know when it will be enforced, they will comply. It only takes the possibility of being caught that triggers the behavior.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
That is incorrect. People tend to drive as fast or as slow as enforcement of the speed limit allows. If authorities start enforcing the speed limit, the speed driven will decrease. Since there is no real penalty to speeding, people speed.
The problem is that NoSQL usually is set up by inexperienced people or amateurs. Relational databases tend to be the opposite. Regardless of whether NoSQL installs with total access and Postgress with no access doesn't matter. Both need to be configured to provide the access needed. I do agree that Postrgress' method is safer because nobody has access unless you grant them it. But, that doesn't change the fact that both need to be configured.
The reality is NoSQL is being implemented in cases where it is not the best solution. Same could be said for Relational databases. Often they are overkill for simple things. In the end, both are tools and selecting the right tool for the job is the best solutions.
The issue here really isn't SQL vs NoSQL. It's about securing the data and access. Lack of security is not inherent in NoSQL, it just occurs more often than SQL databases.
There is a thing called Avgas 91/96 UL (unleaded) but it is uncommon compared to Avgas 100 LL ("low"-lead), and probably incompatible with many engines. Rotax engines (very common on ultralight aircraft) can use it, but because of the low availability of unleaded avgas they often run on automotive fuel (mogas) or 100LL instead.
I've actually used 91/96UL, but it is hard to get. Seemed to perform just as well as 100UL. Of course, a lot would depend on the type of aircraft and particularly the valves. We tested it on four different aircraft for about three months and pulled the heads off and could not detect any difference compared with the regular avgass.
I'd be a little leery using mogas, unless it was for personal use. Too much risk in using an unapproved fuel for commercial purposes.
You, of course, are correct. I should have said low lead, since 100LL is 1/2 the lead of 100/130. There are viable replacements for 100LL in the US (already approved in other countries). It just seems the US doesn't want to let them be adopted for wide spread use here. For instance, we looked at testing other fuel samples for our fleet and received, by mistake a load of 91/96 (the brown military fuel) and it actually worked quite well. Why it isn't normally available, I have no clue. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get it, since.:(
to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.
Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.
This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.
Oh, wait . . .
The real reason you had to pay extra for unleaded gas is that there was no alternative. The lead was added to the gas, it never had to be removed from it.
To be fair to them, it's a very tough time for fundamental physics right now. Progress is insanely expensive, funding is all but non-existent, it's hard to find talented scientists who actually want to study it, and the general public just isn't interested anymore.
There is a reason for this. There isn't a lot of practical application from theoretical physics, particularly given the high cost. Businesses realize this, which is why they don't invest in such research and it is left up to the government. In a time of anti-government spending, no ROI equates to no funding.
As for the general public not being interested, there is, in the USA, anyway, a strong correlation between the decline of the middle class and funding of science. Why? The rich don't need it and the poor are too busy trying to figure out how to get their own basic needs met. In addition, tax revenues, which fund such endeavors come from a strong economy. Economists will tell you that the economy is driven by the middle class. A strong middle class equates to a strong economy and vice-versa.
So, in short, yes, the public doesn't care about any of this, because the public is interested in either accumulating more wealth or meeting basic needs. Doing something for the common good has gone the way of the middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
Given various technologies like radar detectors and the Waze app, many drivers believe that they do have information about when it is being enforce.
Yes, and when the radar detector beeps, what do the drivers do? They slow down to the speed limit.
Fuel consumption is just a function of gear ratios. 60mph is the best speed for fuel consumption right now because it is a good average of common highway speed limits. If speed limits change (up or down,) car makers will compensate.
That might be true on a dynometer, where you are simply measuring output, but that only describes the most efficient a motor can be. In the real world aerodynamic pressures are vastly different at higher speeds than lower speeds regardless of the gear ratio. The typical SUV or truck starts experiencing more and more wind resistance as speeds go over 45mph. The problem isn't gearing, but wind resistance. RPMs move up in a straight line where as resistance is geometric. It is a losing battle, regardless of the gear ratio. It isn't a problem that manufacturing can accomplish, it is basic physics. It also is a problem not unique to cars, but aircraft, too.
You are quoting research that a graduate student of mine actually helped produce (not the original, but the followup in 1997), but you are missing the point. Yes, people will drive at speeds they are comfortable with, that is not in dispute. However, that is assuming there is no enforcement of existing limits. The research shows that if enforcement is factored in, most people will drive within five miles of the speed limit. It further shows, that this leads to a more consistent speed among all drivers on a given stretch of road and as such improves the number of vehicles per mile per hour per given stretch.
You are correct, posting speed limits does not affect overall speed. That is, unless those speed limits are actually enforced. If you aren't going to enforce them, then why post them.
It should be simple to understand that rules without consequences don't change behavior. OTOH, removing consequences tends to encourage the behavior the rule was meant to address, which is where we are today with speed limits.
The reality is that the faster vehicles go, the longer they take to stop or if the driver is distracted the further the vehicle travels until attention is focused. Couple that with the aging population, where reaction time is decreasing, and you have a recipe for disaster. One solution, albeit very costly, is to force people into driving autonomous vehicles. Of course, that will take years before they are ready and in sufficient quantity to make a difference (look at the hybrids, even government subsidies weren't enough to get sufficient people to buy them where they were economical and they were vastly cheaper than autonomous vehicles are expected to be). Or, a simpler solution, available today and proven to work is to enforce the traffic laws.
Again, I agree, just changing the number on the sign won't change peoples speed habits. However, enforcing the number on the sign has been proven to do so.
Actually, it does none of that. Police used to issue traffic violations and speeding tickets without having traps. They would just be cruising on their patrol route and if they saw an infraction, they pulled the person over. What has changed, however, is that police staffing has been reduced because of erosion of tax basis and there are now fewer officers per 1,000 citizens and those remaining officers are tasked with other things than traffic. In short, with reduced funding the police have to choose between protecting property or streets and property wins. Police traps, at least in the US, didn't become really popular until the 1980s when budget cuts were enacted under the guise of trickle down economics. This left many police (and fire) departments under funded. So the police turned to traps, not because they are more effective, but because they are cheaper.
If you want safe traffic, somebody has to enforce it because, one only has to look at the speeds people are driving and the lights they drive through to see that individuals don't follow the rules without a consequence. OTOH, if you are okay with the current state of things, then nothing needs to be done.
Except that the laws people are talking about autonomous vehicles being different are speed, stop lights/signs, etc. The only law that changed is not about autonomous vehicles but about the drivers of autonomous vehicles not having to be in direct control. For instance, even in states that have allowed them, the "driver" must still be behind the wheel ready to take over. That law change is about the operator of the vehicle, not about what the vehicle is allowed to do on the roadways.
Picture Uber, but with all the cars owned by a handful of people, and no drivers involved. So... basically an automated taxi system instead of a manual one where the dispatcher does their best to screw over the drivers.
As I recall Uber has already publicly voiced their intention to go that route as soon as it becomes possible.
You really think Donald Trump or his buddies is going to allow his expensive autonomous vehicle to go out during the day when he doesn't need it to let others ride in it? I'm curious how many uber drivers drive luxury autos now? Because, that is what autonomous vehicles will be.
And, if uber does go that route, with their own vehicles, well, then they aren't uber any more, but just a cab company named uber.
So, we should enforce distracted driving laws on driverless cars?
The fact that an car is even allowed to be driverless is an exception to existing motor vehicle laws. Once you take that step, the rest is details.
Usually rear ending somebody at a traffic light is not from a distracted driver. It's just the opposite. The driver realizes the light is about to change and accelerates, but not expecting the lead vehicle to stop.
As for your last statement, no, driverless cars are not an exception to motor vehicle laws. States that are allowing them have passed motor vehicle laws to do so. As such, driverless cars fall, where allowed, fall under the motor vehicle code for that state.
So more cops to that the robot cars are safer?
That's a head scratching response...
Ironically, yes. More cops enforcing the traffic laws will make non-autonomous vehicles safer to operate. Since these non-autonomous vehicles are what are causing the high accident rate with autonomous vehicles, then the autonomous vehicles will be safer to operate, too. It's simple if a then b; if b then c; therefore if a then c.
Busses are commercial vehicles. So, yes, there are different rules in existence for commercial and personal vehicles, including the requirements to obtain and keep a license to operate them.
Perhaps only the wealthy will OWN automated cars, it has been pointed out several times that automated cars will mark the decline of car ownership in general.
Uber-like services will be the new norm where you can get a ride anywhere you want any time you want.
In this case, I don't think it is unreasonable to have two sets of rules. One for people who want to stay "manual" and one for automated drivers. Sort of like how insurance costs more if you are a risky driver.
If autonomous vehicles cause most people to go without cars, then there won't be uber. If there isn't uber, then how will people get around, unless you increase public transportation. As for insurance, if an autonomous vehicle is twice as likely to be rear ended than a non-autonomous vehicle, then the insurance will be higher on the autonomous vehicle.
Of course, most people already think there are two sets of rules. Those that apply to them and those that apply to everybody else.
From TFA: "They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes".
If this is in fact the dominant accident mode, I would suggest that this is not such a big deal and will, over the long term, be self-correcting as the insurance rates for idiot non-automated drivers shoot up because they can't get it through their thick skulls not to tailgate other vehicles.
Unless you live in a no fault state and each person is responsible for the damage to their vehicle.
Another post form an AC about an anonymous study. You would think that if this study were true, that cities would want to know. The reality is that cities tend to heavily enforce traffic laws because the real data shows that if you don't it leads to grid lock, accidents and congestion. But, maybe some AC really knows more about it than the collective body of work that shows otherwise.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are. Perhaps, driving like an idiot in all sorts of unpredictable ways is the right approach to reducing accidents in a system that presently dominated by idiots driving in all sorts of unpredictable ways?
Actually, that's not what the article stated. The overall accident rate for autonomous vehicles is lower than human vehicles. However, the likelihood of your vehicle being hit by a vehicle driven by a human is twice as high if you drive an autonomous vehicle.
The other issue, which has not been tested yet, is how will the autonomous vehicles fair against different manufacturers who have developed their own AI? It is much more predictable to program all AI cars to obey the traffic laws than to have each manufacturer program their own exceptions. Even if the exceptions are standardized, there wills till be differences. For instance, traffic laws are standardized, but there are differences in how humans react to situations. As soon as you add the ability for each AI system to interpret what is safe and to override the traffic laws, you inject unpredictability. And that will increase accidents, even for AI cars.
If your goal is really to usher in autonomous vehicles, then instead of programming them to drive in unpredictable manner like people do, it would be better to train people to follow the same rules as the autonomous vehicles. You do this by enforcing the traffic laws.
They might have to allow them to break the law.
Studies have found that cities would grind to a halt if everyone holds to the law. The only other way is to get mathematicians to design the road so that dead locks are not possible.
Citation please. Most major cities do hold people to the law -- trying sitting in an intersection in Manhattan when the light is red and see what happens. City traffic depends on people obeying the law because of the high density. Highway engineers will tell you that congestion in city streets and highways is not related to speed limit, unless set very low. For safety, higher speeds mean increased distance between vehicles, so fewer vehicles per mile than lower speeds. Higher speeds also means traffic flow is more reactionary to slight changes in speed of vehicles ahead, which actually creates more congestion.
Computer modeling at the University of Michigan shows that the ideal highway speed is around 60 for the most vehicles per hour without incident. It also is the best speed for fuel consumption and reduces wear and tear on the pavement.
This should go both ways. People will need to adapt to the way automated vehicles drive (this would be helped by labeling them so they are easy to spot). Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
If your goal is to give privilege to the wealthy who will be able to afford autonomous vehicles than this would certainly do it. The rich, riding in these new vehicles, will get special rules related to operating a vehicle in traffic compared to the rest of us. Then, in addition, if there is an accident where a regular car hits an autonomous vehicle, it will be the regular drivers fault because the autonomous vehicle wasn't breaking the law in what it was doing.
A better and more practical solution would be to enforce the existing motor vehicle laws until the majority of the vehicles are autonomous. You know the old adage about Lady Justice being blind and the law applies equally to all people.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason then a lot of drivers won't respect it, and unless you can and will enforce that limit strongly and consistently, that is unlikely to change. Putting the remaining drivers -- those who do want to be responsible and safe -- in a position where they have to choose between breaking the law and driving as safely as possible, is bad law-making.
Actually, you don't need to enforce it consistently. You get as much compliance, but at a lower cost, if you haphazardly enforce it. If the driver doesn't know when it will be enforced, they will comply. It only takes the possibility of being caught that triggers the behavior.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
That is incorrect. People tend to drive as fast or as slow as enforcement of the speed limit allows. If authorities start enforcing the speed limit, the speed driven will decrease. Since there is no real penalty to speeding, people speed.
The problem is that NoSQL usually is set up by inexperienced people or amateurs. Relational databases tend to be the opposite. Regardless of whether NoSQL installs with total access and Postgress with no access doesn't matter. Both need to be configured to provide the access needed. I do agree that Postrgress' method is safer because nobody has access unless you grant them it. But, that doesn't change the fact that both need to be configured.
The reality is NoSQL is being implemented in cases where it is not the best solution. Same could be said for Relational databases. Often they are overkill for simple things. In the end, both are tools and selecting the right tool for the job is the best solutions.
The issue here really isn't SQL vs NoSQL. It's about securing the data and access. Lack of security is not inherent in NoSQL, it just occurs more often than SQL databases.
There is a thing called Avgas 91/96 UL (unleaded) but it is uncommon compared to Avgas 100 LL ("low"-lead), and probably incompatible with many engines.
Rotax engines (very common on ultralight aircraft) can use it, but because of the low availability of unleaded avgas they often run on automotive fuel (mogas) or 100LL instead.
I've actually used 91/96UL, but it is hard to get. Seemed to perform just as well as 100UL. Of course, a lot would depend on the type of aircraft and particularly the valves. We tested it on four different aircraft for about three months and pulled the heads off and could not detect any difference compared with the regular avgass.
I'd be a little leery using mogas, unless it was for personal use. Too much risk in using an unapproved fuel for commercial purposes.
You, of course, are correct. I should have said low lead, since 100LL is 1/2 the lead of 100/130. There are viable replacements for 100LL in the US (already approved in other countries). It just seems the US doesn't want to let them be adopted for wide spread use here. For instance, we looked at testing other fuel samples for our fleet and received, by mistake a load of 91/96 (the brown military fuel) and it actually worked quite well. Why it isn't normally available, I have no clue. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get it, since. :(
to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.
Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.
This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.
Oh, wait . . .
The real reason you had to pay extra for unleaded gas is that there was no alternative. The lead was added to the gas, it never had to be removed from it.
Small airports next to elementary schools are probably creating future violent criminals.
That depends. Main small engine aircraft now use unleaded avgas instead of the leaded variety.
To be fair to them, it's a very tough time for fundamental physics right now. Progress is insanely expensive, funding is all but non-existent, it's hard to find talented scientists who actually want to study it, and the general public just isn't interested anymore.
There is a reason for this. There isn't a lot of practical application from theoretical physics, particularly given the high cost. Businesses realize this, which is why they don't invest in such research and it is left up to the government. In a time of anti-government spending, no ROI equates to no funding.
As for the general public not being interested, there is, in the USA, anyway, a strong correlation between the decline of the middle class and funding of science. Why? The rich don't need it and the poor are too busy trying to figure out how to get their own basic needs met. In addition, tax revenues, which fund such endeavors come from a strong economy. Economists will tell you that the economy is driven by the middle class. A strong middle class equates to a strong economy and vice-versa.
So, in short, yes, the public doesn't care about any of this, because the public is interested in either accumulating more wealth or meeting basic needs. Doing something for the common good has gone the way of the middle class.