Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
near me.

Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
everything at once. Everybody does it, right?

Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.

It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
(see below), but that's another issue.

In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...

"Red light camera solution?"
"Big Boy" wrote in message

...
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
:
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: **** taking away even more of our
: freedom.

Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?

Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?

The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...

---
jb3

http://groups.google.com/group/az.ge...2f792fe8027559

***

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/...ution%21& l4=

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

(other people say)

I've been saying for years that criminal drivers are the real
terrorists. Your chances of being killed or maimed by a speeder or
DUI are a thousand times greater than by some mad bomber. Americans
are such idiots for buying into this arab terrorism crap.

My family have been a victim of both. I had a cousin killed on 9/11, and his
father was killed by a mindless driver who ran a red-light. I only have to
know that the first one exists. The second, I have to worry about, and watch
for on a daily basis. Especially when I'm traveling on 2 wheels.

That's my point. Most of us have never been endangered by a terrorist
but we are endangered by by criminal drivers every day. And yet which
is the idiot american most concerned with.?

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...


Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.

Instead of "Its like they don't care..." we have exactly the opposite where
people care a lot and are putting a lot of money into developing solutions
industry wide to make driving potentially very safe.

In your ignorance of present activities, you have done nothing while the
world has many people actually solving the problems.

Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders
- then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

On Feb 21, 12:03*am, "Jack May" wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message

...

Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
....
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. *I think we are talking about a single chip. *Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. * The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road..
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation
as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell
phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic
stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the
limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put
direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Transponders. Yeah, great idea.



Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. *Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:03:37 -0800, Jack May wrote:
Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Not a likely scenario.

- Objects in the road that weren't expected to end up in the road won't
have transponders. Wild animals. Debris blown into the road by storms.
Things that fall off vehicles. (semi retreads!)

- Who pays for the transponders? Required in every vehicle, every person,
and every domestic animal?

- As Amy suggests, it sure sounds like a golden opportunity for a massive
Denial of Service attack.

- Motorists won't accept it. Police can use the transponders to track
your location. Some don't want the police to know where you are at any
given second - others would simply be unhappy that it would make
enforcement of the speed limit much easier.

(they also won't accept it because it will make it impossible to pull off
stupid, dangerous moves in a bullheaded attempt to continue speeding when
traffic conditions don't permit it...)

(indeed, I think the latter condition will prevent the widespread adoption
of *any* type of autonomous collision avoidance system. A system that
*enforces* minimum safe following and passing distances will make it
impossible for the everyday 80mph speed bully to continue speeding. He'll
never accept it.)

Tom Sherman writes:
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

-Miles

--
Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions.