At least in some states they need to consider the penalties for DUI. In many, drivers will be fined as little as $250 and be allowed to continue driving on a restricted license. DUI should result in a minimum one year total ban and a requirement to resit your test. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
Many other countries have made drink driving socially unacceotable. That status is long overdue in the US.
Well, 0.08 is pretty much standard now, and while I don't think people should be driving at that amount, there are many medications that people take that make them just as dangerous behind a wheel and yet that is legal. Why is alcohol singled out?
Also, in most states, you have to get special insurance if you've had a DWI/DUI and it is a lot more than a small fine. On top of that, almost all states suspend your license, many upto a year. However, they do issue a hardship license so you can go to work. Unless you live in a major city, there is not an option of public transportation.
DWI/DUI is a serious issue, however, most laws on the books are not necessarily fair. However, nobody in the legislature will do anything about it for fear of appearing soft on DWI/DUI.
In Missouri, for instance a second DWI gets your licensed revoked for 5 years and a third gets you jail. Makes sense until you find out their is no statute of limitations on those. Get a DWI while at a college frat party and then 30 years later after your daughter's wedding and your license is revoked for 5 years.
There was a case here where somebody in the 60's got 2 DWIs (back when it was a slap on the wrist). Then in 2008, 40 years later, he got another at his daughter's wedding (blew 0.08). Mandatory jail time, no ifs ands or buts. Judge even apologised.
I'm all for tougher DWI/DUI laws, but not if they come with mandatory penalties. The whole purpose of having a judge is that justice be served. Mandatory penalties removes that part of the legal system and instead puts it in the hands of the legislative branch.
Also, I don't know where you live, but here and everywhere I've been, drunk driving is socially unacceptable.
1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.
2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.
It is your constitutional right to refuse a breathalyzer test. However, you do not have a constitutional right to drive a vehicle. As such, the states can revoke that privileged for any number of reasons, one of which is refusing the test.
In Missouri, if you refuse the breath test, you are automatically guilty of a DWI, regardless of your blood alcohol. However, you do have a right to talk to your attorney before taking the test.
If Amazon were the only publisher, then yes, this could be construed as censorship, however, they aren't and it's not. As for people who purchased a kindle, well, since most books are not available for kindle, then they aren't on the receiving end of being censored either. And what about a Nook? Is Amazon responsible for publishing books to the Nook? Or B&N to the Kindle? No, they aren't. And neither are they responsible for publishing everything submitted to them.
But poetry, by definition, can't suck. It can span the realm of technical genre to free prose, and as such, is always a matter preference by the audience. That equates to presentation and content.
Amazon, with respect to choosing which genre of books to publish or not, is also not practising censorship. It is not prohibiting the individual from pedalling their wares, elsewhere, only not on their storefront.
Likewise, if Random House rejects my submission, I am free to submit it elsewhere.
.. we will be longing for a past long gone were authors could write whatever they wanted and not be censored. This is serious, given how large and influential Amazon is. One may or not agree with having a rating system for certain topics, but censoring books based on its title?
If I write a bunch of poetry and I can't get it published, is that censorship? Amazon chooses, as is their right, not to publish or sell certain types of media. BTW, the title of the book in question, is "How to Rape a Straight Guy." It's title is fairly accurate to its content. Every book publisher in the world makes decisions, daily as to what they are willing to publish or not. Those decisions are based on market, quality of writing, and yes, content.
Amazon gives self publishers a pass on market and quality of writing (or filming, or whatever media you are using). They still screen for content. However, they only remove an item after someone has complained and it is shown that it violates their publishing agreement as to content.
OMG! If anybody would actually read the posts and the linked pages plus do a little research they would see that this article is highly misleading. Amazon removed another self-published book titled "How to Rape a Straight Guy." They also have removed some erotica books whose "main" theme is about incest. They are not going on a witch hunt, however.
Amazon pretty much lets you self publish anything, then if someone complains, they review the material published for compliance with their user agreement with the writer/content creator. If after review, there is a violation of said agreement, then the material is removed.
If Amazon tells you, before you ever publish the book, that you can not use their self-publishing platform for certain types of works, then it is the writer that is at fault for either a) ignoring the agreement or b) being ignorant of what they've agreed to.
Amazon's usage agreement is pretty straight forward. It's referenced on the pages from where you sign up to use their self-publishing program. Oh, by the way, did I mention that it is THEIR (Amazon's) service being provided? Surely, people on slashdot aren't suggesting that Amazon must publish and sell everything that anybody wants?
Except that most accidents are not multi-vehicle accidents but single vehicle ones. This is not including those accidents in parking lots, etc., but actual moving vehicles.
Therefore, one could argue that all cars going in the same direction and eliminating obstacles would not address the major cause of accidents, which really tend to be operator error (inattentiveness, wrong speed for road conditions, etc.). Inattentiveness is hard to correct for, however, lowering the speed limit does give one more time to react and does indeed mitigate the risk.
I would recommend either reading up on Putin's quietly enthusiastic suppression of opposition, close ties with a circle of crony-capitalist plutocrats who did very well in the post-soviet privatization, and vaguely sinister cult of personality.
If you have already done that and still like him; I urgently suggest checking yourself for signs of closet authoritarian nationalism...
And that is different than Obama/Bush/Cheney (insert your own politician here)? Do you really believe that the US government hasn't perfected the suppression of opposition and they don't have close ties with their own capitalists? Their (the US) methods may be different, but they practice the same thing.
Well, unlike Russia, in America, the government let all of the media (you know those who employ those journalists), be bought up by just a few people. It is a much more efficient way of keeping the journalist in line, when you control the monopoly that employs them.
The US does not have a free press, only the perception of one. A journalist who writes an article that goes against corporate policy quickly finds them self out of a job and blacklisted.
Actually, it's probably just the opposite. After the BSD backdoor story and after the Wikileaks cables, maybe Russia is concerned about using Microsoft Windows. Of course, Microsoft would *never* work with the NSA/FBI/CIA/Control/Chaos on back-doors that undermine the security of Russia... I can't imaging why they would want their own operating system...
I don't think Microsoft needs to work with the NSA/FBI/CIA, etc on making Windows unsecure. They seem to do a pretty good job keeping it that way all on their own.
Start stop is not the answer. An SUV that currently gets 14mpg in town, would only get, at most 15.4mpg and that is only if the maximum 10% efficiency is reached. At the more realistic 4%, it would be 14.6mpg. Either of those are still crappy mileage.
If the US is serious about reducing fuel consumption, lowering the speed limit has the largest impact, because it touches every car in existence, not just new ones. Face it, cars burn less fuel at 55-60mph than they do at 70mph (let alone the 80-90mph a lot of freeway drivers seem to drive). There is also more time to react to problems and less wear and tear on the highways. Once the speed limit is reduced, then new cars can be manufactured for that standard, making them even more efficient since they won't need all the horsepower they have today.
Studies show that the average vehicle, on the road today, would increase mpg 12% at 60mph versus 70mph and 15% at 55mph. That same SUV, would go from 14mpg to 16.1mpg at a 55mph speed limit. Better yet, a sedan would go from 25mpg to 28+mpg.
The device that most effects fuel efficiency is the connection from the seat to the throttle.
I agree that driving really old cars (like my beetle) is not the answer, I was only pointing out that what is by today's standard good gas mileage, was obtainable 40 years ago.
I also agree, that small cars like Europe are the way to go, particularly with the TDI diesel engines, that rival hybrids in fuel efficiency.
With regards to gas, yes, it is too cheap so people won't give up their SUV, however, more expensive gas is not the answer, either. That doesn't take into count the working poor who are not in a position to purchase new or even relatively new fuel efficient vehicles.
A better approach, is to mandate higher mpg on new vehicles used for passenger service (if you drive your SUV/truck predominately on the farm/off road, it's not passenger service, anything else is).
To address safety issues, SUV/Trucks for passenger use, shouldn't be allowed to be any higher than standard vehicles.
In other words, you can solve the problem by making the fuel so expensive then nobody wants to buy SUV, but this hurts the working poor or you can make the cost of the SUV (through efficiency requirements, etc.) so expensive, that nobody wants to buy the SUV.
One other thing often overlooked with small cars is that most collisions are not head on collisions with SUVs, but single vehicle accidents with a tree, or some other fixed object.
Face it, most places in the US do not have public transportation, particularly the Midwest, that would allow for getting rid of vehicles. Therefore, the easiest way to protect the public and keep fuel costs down is to lower the speed limit, lighten the vehicles and eliminate the risks from SUV and full sized trucks that are driven on the public highways. Other than being politically unpopular, it is a lot more achievable than trying to engineer more and more things into the vehicles.
Most accidents are not head on collisions with a SUV, but one vehicle accidents with immovable objects (trees, posts, rock walls).
Besides, a 60mph head on collision between an SUV and a smaller vehicle doesn't make much difference to the driver of the smaller vehicle whether they have an airbag or not.
However, if eliminating SUV's from the road, means we can all drive smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles, then I'm all for it.
Power steering you use all the time as your car is not riding on rails. Holding the wheel straight when you hit an imperfection in the road is power steering. I agree with brakes using vacuum, but the OP included power brakes, so I did, too. If the AC is clutched out, then it isn't really a drag on the engine in the first place. Smog pump is a different story.
All of this points to removing the belt driven pumps and compressors, won't save a lot of power/fuel.
When the power company comes by your house to do a thermal image, the windows always show heat loss/gain (depending on outside temperature). Glass does not block infrared. It does block UV, which is why reptile keepers can't put their UV lights on a glass aquarium top (but can for their infrared heaters).
If your lights are being used as a cableless fiber optic system, what is to keep big brother from sitting outside and picking up the communications from the street?
Even without the texting, the first driver has a response time, then the second driver response is based on the first driver and the third on the second, etc. Now, adding 1/4 second to 1/2 second delay to spin up the motor (something most people would think of as instant), means one less car through the light in city traffic.
That equates to anywhere from 10% to 20% fewer cars through the average light, which would be significant in major metro areas. Yes, lights could be made to be longer, but then that impacts the cross traffic.
But, the devices that are belt driven on modern cars tend to be water pumps, power steering pumps and air conditioners. Water and power steering pumps need to be "on" all the time, and while it may be possible to use a smaller, more efficient electric motor, requiring less hp from the engine, unless they also correspondingly scale back the hp of the engine, they won't get any savings.
It is unlikely that the compressor on the air conditioner will be much more efficient if it is all electirc, like in a window unit a/c. It has to do a lot of work. As such, the engine hp needs to still be high enough to drive the compressor.
Also, a belt may be a SPOF, however, going electric, you now have multiple points of failure as you can't drive the car without the water pump or without the power steering pump. So, while the belt is a SPOF, for all of the devices, it is still a SPOF, versus multiple points.
Also, with regards to reliability, belt breakage is relatively rare if replaced at 100,000 miles. On the other hand, electric window motors, fail quite frequently, so why would a high torque direct drive electric pump motor be any different?
I'm not saying it can't be done, but making it more rugged, tends to lower the efficiency.
In reality, even on an old VW bug, there is excess capacity in the engine hp, so adding a belt to drive accessories is almost free.
It's interesting that race cars don't have airbags and are built with rigid frames and usually the driver survives an accident at well over highway speeds. What do they know that we don't? They wear five point harnesses for seat belts. Air bags were added because people don't wear seatbelts.
Accident mortality rates were actually lower during the pre-airbag period of cars (ie 1980s). Of course, speed limits were 55 back then and there weren't SUVs.
Race cars are supposedly the most fuel efficient vehicles there are (they squeeze every last btu from the fuel burned and convert it to usable hp). They are light weight and ultra safe. The public doesn't need the high hp of a race engine, but the same things that make them safe and fuel efficient could be used in consumer vehicles. Of course, people would need to wear a seat belt.
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Simple answer: They don't.
You are claiming that the car will instantly be up to operating speed the moment you take your foot off the brake and hit the accelerator? That would be pretty impressive, even if the starter spun the engine up at 1000rpm, it would still take a fraction of a second. Would also take a hefty splash of gas, too.
I'm not thinking that it would take seconds, like in starting a regular car, but it would surely take 1/4 to 1/2 second before you could actually drive off (on top of the time needed to actually accelerate). Nothing wrong with that, except that in a city like New York, it would create traffic problems.
But, if they have solved the theoretical problem of instantaneous motion and transfer of power, then indeed this would be great (for much more than just automobiles).
Slashdot Mirror
nobody riding in the back seats of taxis has ever been administered a breath test and issued a DUI or DWI.
this will get -100 because the alkies are running slashdot now.
I'm not an alky, but, unless you live in metropolitan areas, there aren't taxis and public transportation.
At least in some states they need to consider the penalties for DUI. In many, drivers will be fined as little as $250 and be allowed to continue driving on a restricted license. DUI should result in a minimum one year total ban and a requirement to resit your test. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
Many other countries have made drink driving socially unacceotable. That status is long overdue in the US.
Well, 0.08 is pretty much standard now, and while I don't think people should be driving at that amount, there are many medications that people take that make them just as dangerous behind a wheel and yet that is legal. Why is alcohol singled out?
Also, in most states, you have to get special insurance if you've had a DWI/DUI and it is a lot more than a small fine. On top of that, almost all states suspend your license, many upto a year. However, they do issue a hardship license so you can go to work. Unless you live in a major city, there is not an option of public transportation.
DWI/DUI is a serious issue, however, most laws on the books are not necessarily fair. However, nobody in the legislature will do anything about it for fear of appearing soft on DWI/DUI.
In Missouri, for instance a second DWI gets your licensed revoked for 5 years and a third gets you jail. Makes sense until you find out their is no statute of limitations on those. Get a DWI while at a college frat party and then 30 years later after your daughter's wedding and your license is revoked for 5 years.
There was a case here where somebody in the 60's got 2 DWIs (back when it was a slap on the wrist). Then in 2008, 40 years later, he got another at his daughter's wedding (blew 0.08). Mandatory jail time, no ifs ands or buts. Judge even apologised.
I'm all for tougher DWI/DUI laws, but not if they come with mandatory penalties. The whole purpose of having a judge is that justice be served. Mandatory penalties removes that part of the legal system and instead puts it in the hands of the legislative branch.
Also, I don't know where you live, but here and everywhere I've been, drunk driving is socially unacceptable.
1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.
2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.
It is your constitutional right to refuse a breathalyzer test. However, you do not have a constitutional right to drive a vehicle. As such, the states can revoke that privileged for any number of reasons, one of which is refusing the test.
In Missouri, if you refuse the breath test, you are automatically guilty of a DWI, regardless of your blood alcohol. However, you do have a right to talk to your attorney before taking the test.
If Amazon were the only publisher, then yes, this could be construed as censorship, however, they aren't and it's not. As for people who purchased a kindle, well, since most books are not available for kindle, then they aren't on the receiving end of being censored either. And what about a Nook? Is Amazon responsible for publishing books to the Nook? Or B&N to the Kindle? No, they aren't. And neither are they responsible for publishing everything submitted to them.
But poetry, by definition, can't suck. It can span the realm of technical genre to free prose, and as such, is always a matter preference by the audience. That equates to presentation and content.
Amazon, with respect to choosing which genre of books to publish or not, is also not practising censorship. It is not prohibiting the individual from pedalling their wares, elsewhere, only not on their storefront.
Likewise, if Random House rejects my submission, I am free to submit it elsewhere.
.. we will be longing for a past long gone were authors could write whatever they wanted and not be censored. This is serious, given how large and influential Amazon is. One may or not agree with having a rating system for certain topics, but censoring books based on its title?
If I write a bunch of poetry and I can't get it published, is that censorship? Amazon chooses, as is their right, not to publish or sell certain types of media. BTW, the title of the book in question, is "How to Rape a Straight Guy." It's title is fairly accurate to its content. Every book publisher in the world makes decisions, daily as to what they are willing to publish or not. Those decisions are based on market, quality of writing, and yes, content.
Amazon gives self publishers a pass on market and quality of writing (or filming, or whatever media you are using). They still screen for content. However, they only remove an item after someone has complained and it is shown that it violates their publishing agreement as to content.
That doesn't fit the definition of censorship.
OMG! If anybody would actually read the posts and the linked pages plus do a little research they would see that this article is highly misleading. Amazon removed another self-published book titled "How to Rape a Straight Guy." They also have removed some erotica books whose "main" theme is about incest. They are not going on a witch hunt, however.
Amazon pretty much lets you self publish anything, then if someone complains, they review the material published for compliance with their user agreement with the writer/content creator. If after review, there is a violation of said agreement, then the material is removed.
If Amazon tells you, before you ever publish the book, that you can not use their self-publishing platform for certain types of works, then it is the writer that is at fault for either a) ignoring the agreement or b) being ignorant of what they've agreed to.
Amazon's usage agreement is pretty straight forward. It's referenced on the pages from where you sign up to use their self-publishing program. Oh, by the way, did I mention that it is THEIR (Amazon's) service being provided? Surely, people on slashdot aren't suggesting that Amazon must publish and sell everything that anybody wants?
Except that most accidents are not multi-vehicle accidents but single vehicle ones. This is not including those accidents in parking lots, etc., but actual moving vehicles.
Therefore, one could argue that all cars going in the same direction and eliminating obstacles would not address the major cause of accidents, which really tend to be operator error (inattentiveness, wrong speed for road conditions, etc.). Inattentiveness is hard to correct for, however, lowering the speed limit does give one more time to react and does indeed mitigate the risk.
I would recommend either reading up on Putin's quietly enthusiastic suppression of opposition, close ties with a circle of crony-capitalist plutocrats who did very well in the post-soviet privatization, and vaguely sinister cult of personality.
If you have already done that and still like him; I urgently suggest checking yourself for signs of closet authoritarian nationalism...
And that is different than Obama/Bush/Cheney (insert your own politician here)? Do you really believe that the US government hasn't perfected the suppression of opposition and they don't have close ties with their own capitalists? Their (the US) methods may be different, but they practice the same thing.
Well, unlike Russia, in America, the government let all of the media (you know those who employ those journalists), be bought up by just a few people. It is a much more efficient way of keeping the journalist in line, when you control the monopoly that employs them.
The US does not have a free press, only the perception of one. A journalist who writes an article that goes against corporate policy quickly finds them self out of a job and blacklisted.
Actually, it's probably just the opposite. After the BSD backdoor story and after the Wikileaks cables, maybe Russia is concerned about using Microsoft Windows. Of course, Microsoft would *never* work with the NSA/FBI/CIA/Control/Chaos on back-doors that undermine the security of Russia... I can't imaging why they would want their own operating system...
I don't think Microsoft needs to work with the NSA/FBI/CIA, etc on making Windows unsecure. They seem to do a pretty good job keeping it that way all on their own.
Start stop is not the answer. An SUV that currently gets 14mpg in town, would only get, at most 15.4mpg and that is only if the maximum 10% efficiency is reached. At the more realistic 4%, it would be 14.6mpg. Either of those are still crappy mileage.
If the US is serious about reducing fuel consumption, lowering the speed limit has the largest impact, because it touches every car in existence, not just new ones. Face it, cars burn less fuel at 55-60mph than they do at 70mph (let alone the 80-90mph a lot of freeway drivers seem to drive). There is also more time to react to problems and less wear and tear on the highways. Once the speed limit is reduced, then new cars can be manufactured for that standard, making them even more efficient since they won't need all the horsepower they have today.
Studies show that the average vehicle, on the road today, would increase mpg 12% at 60mph versus 70mph and 15% at 55mph. That same SUV, would go from 14mpg to 16.1mpg at a 55mph speed limit. Better yet, a sedan would go from 25mpg to 28+mpg.
The device that most effects fuel efficiency is the connection from the seat to the throttle.
I agree that driving really old cars (like my beetle) is not the answer, I was only pointing out that what is by today's standard good gas mileage, was obtainable 40 years ago.
I also agree, that small cars like Europe are the way to go, particularly with the TDI diesel engines, that rival hybrids in fuel efficiency.
With regards to gas, yes, it is too cheap so people won't give up their SUV, however, more expensive gas is not the answer, either. That doesn't take into count the working poor who are not in a position to purchase new or even relatively new fuel efficient vehicles.
A better approach, is to mandate higher mpg on new vehicles used for passenger service (if you drive your SUV/truck predominately on the farm/off road, it's not passenger service, anything else is).
To address safety issues, SUV/Trucks for passenger use, shouldn't be allowed to be any higher than standard vehicles.
In other words, you can solve the problem by making the fuel so expensive then nobody wants to buy SUV, but this hurts the working poor or you can make the cost of the SUV (through efficiency requirements, etc.) so expensive, that nobody wants to buy the SUV.
One other thing often overlooked with small cars is that most collisions are not head on collisions with SUVs, but single vehicle accidents with a tree, or some other fixed object.
Face it, most places in the US do not have public transportation, particularly the Midwest, that would allow for getting rid of vehicles. Therefore, the easiest way to protect the public and keep fuel costs down is to lower the speed limit, lighten the vehicles and eliminate the risks from SUV and full sized trucks that are driven on the public highways. Other than being politically unpopular, it is a lot more achievable than trying to engineer more and more things into the vehicles.
Most accidents are not head on collisions with a SUV, but one vehicle accidents with immovable objects (trees, posts, rock walls).
Besides, a 60mph head on collision between an SUV and a smaller vehicle doesn't make much difference to the driver of the smaller vehicle whether they have an airbag or not.
However, if eliminating SUV's from the road, means we can all drive smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles, then I'm all for it.
Power steering you use all the time as your car is not riding on rails. Holding the wheel straight when you hit an imperfection in the road is power steering. I agree with brakes using vacuum, but the OP included power brakes, so I did, too. If the AC is clutched out, then it isn't really a drag on the engine in the first place. Smog pump is a different story.
All of this points to removing the belt driven pumps and compressors, won't save a lot of power/fuel.
When the power company comes by your house to do a thermal image, the windows always show heat loss/gain (depending on outside temperature). Glass does not block infrared. It does block UV, which is why reptile keepers can't put their UV lights on a glass aquarium top (but can for their infrared heaters).
Glass doesn't block infrared, it blocks UV.
If your lights are being used as a cableless fiber optic system, what is to keep big brother from sitting outside and picking up the communications from the street?
Even without the texting, the first driver has a response time, then the second driver response is based on the first driver and the third on the second, etc. Now, adding 1/4 second to 1/2 second delay to spin up the motor (something most people would think of as instant), means one less car through the light in city traffic.
That equates to anywhere from 10% to 20% fewer cars through the average light, which would be significant in major metro areas. Yes, lights could be made to be longer, but then that impacts the cross traffic.
But, the devices that are belt driven on modern cars tend to be water pumps, power steering pumps and air conditioners. Water and power steering pumps need to be "on" all the time, and while it may be possible to use a smaller, more efficient electric motor, requiring less hp from the engine, unless they also correspondingly scale back the hp of the engine, they won't get any savings.
It is unlikely that the compressor on the air conditioner will be much more efficient if it is all electirc, like in a window unit a/c. It has to do a lot of work. As such, the engine hp needs to still be high enough to drive the compressor.
Also, a belt may be a SPOF, however, going electric, you now have multiple points of failure as you can't drive the car without the water pump or without the power steering pump. So, while the belt is a SPOF, for all of the devices, it is still a SPOF, versus multiple points.
Also, with regards to reliability, belt breakage is relatively rare if replaced at 100,000 miles. On the other hand, electric window motors, fail quite frequently, so why would a high torque direct drive electric pump motor be any different?
I'm not saying it can't be done, but making it more rugged, tends to lower the efficiency.
In reality, even on an old VW bug, there is excess capacity in the engine hp, so adding a belt to drive accessories is almost free.
Things like power steering, power brakes, and air conditioning tend to be in constant use.
You are correct, I meant 1/5 which is 20%. My mistake.
It's interesting that race cars don't have airbags and are built with rigid frames and usually the driver survives an accident at well over highway speeds. What do they know that we don't? They wear five point harnesses for seat belts. Air bags were added because people don't wear seatbelts.
Accident mortality rates were actually lower during the pre-airbag period of cars (ie 1980s). Of course, speed limits were 55 back then and there weren't SUVs.
Race cars are supposedly the most fuel efficient vehicles there are (they squeeze every last btu from the fuel burned and convert it to usable hp). They are light weight and ultra safe. The public doesn't need the high hp of a race engine, but the same things that make them safe and fuel efficient could be used in consumer vehicles. Of course, people would need to wear a seat belt.
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Simple answer: They don't.
You are claiming that the car will instantly be up to operating speed the moment you take your foot off the brake and hit the accelerator? That would be pretty impressive, even if the starter spun the engine up at 1000rpm, it would still take a fraction of a second. Would also take a hefty splash of gas, too.
I'm not thinking that it would take seconds, like in starting a regular car, but it would surely take 1/4 to 1/2 second before you could actually drive off (on top of the time needed to actually accelerate). Nothing wrong with that, except that in a city like New York, it would create traffic problems.
But, if they have solved the theoretical problem of instantaneous motion and transfer of power, then indeed this would be great (for much more than just automobiles).