Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Vehicle Safety Communications
Vehicle Safety Communications
Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each
other...
* w w w -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm
Main Report Executive Summary
The Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) project was established to
evaluate vehicle safety applications enabled or enhanced by
communications. This project determined initial communication
requirements for each application, performed some Dedicated
Short-Range Communications (DSRC) vehicle testing, and helped to
develop the DSRC standards so that the requirements of the safety
applications were considered. In 2002, seven automotive
manufacturers—BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota,
and VW—formed the VSC Consortium (VSCC) to participate in this project
with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
The goals of the VSC project were to:
• evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based
vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes
and functional productive years saved;
• define and evaluate the communications requirements of selected
vehicle safety applications;
• work with standards development organizations to ensure that
proposed DSRC communications protocols meet the needs of vehicle
safety applications; and
• investigate specific technical issues that may affect the ability of
DSRC to support deployment of vehicle safety applications, estimate
the deployment feasibility of communications-based vehicle safety
applications, and assess the ability of proposed DSRC communications
protocols to meet the needs of safety applications.
[...]
--
Proud to be a wreckless driver.
Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each
other...
* w w w -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm
Main Report Executive Summary
The Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) project was established to
evaluate vehicle safety applications enabled or enhanced by
communications. This project determined initial communication
requirements for each application, performed some Dedicated
Short-Range Communications (DSRC) vehicle testing, and helped to
develop the DSRC standards so that the requirements of the safety
applications were considered. In 2002, seven automotive
manufacturers—BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota,
and VW—formed the VSC Consortium (VSCC) to participate in this project
with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
The goals of the VSC project were to:
• evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based
vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes
and functional productive years saved;
• define and evaluate the communications requirements of selected
vehicle safety applications;
• work with standards development organizations to ensure that
proposed DSRC communications protocols meet the needs of vehicle
safety applications; and
• investigate specific technical issues that may affect the ability of
DSRC to support deployment of vehicle safety applications, estimate
the deployment feasibility of communications-based vehicle safety
applications, and assess the ability of proposed DSRC communications
protocols to meet the needs of safety applications.
[...]
--
Proud to be a wreckless driver.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
> Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each
> other...
I could drive much faster and without worrying about Sloths.
> * w w w -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm
>
> The goals of the VSC project were to:
> • evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based
> vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes
> and functional productive years saved;
How about simply making the roadways automated? The problem with
limited collision-avoidance programs is that they can only prevent two
cars from crashing, but cannot evaluate what happens after the first
collision has been avoided.
This is related to the problem of a lack of lane discipline. It is
assumed that if I move left and towards the inner portion of a roadway,
the traffic on my left will be going faster. If somebody does something
stupid, like merging onto the roadway at half my speed, I expect that I
can accelerate and move left and that I only need to worry about faster
traffic behind me. What sometimes happens is that the traffic is too
fast and I can't move left.
Adding a collision-avoidance program means that the program could decide
that my car should move left without any acceleration. It avoids the
merge-impaired collision, but kills me as I'm rammed by somebody going
much faster in the passing lane. An automated roadway would force a
merger to accelerate and not interfere with the traffic flow. All cars
would travel at the same high speed in all lanes, and nothing would
crash, until it does.
> Imagine if cars could talk to each other and avoid smashing into each
> other...
I could drive much faster and without worrying about Sloths.
> * w w w -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/060419-0843/PDFTOC.htm
>
> The goals of the VSC project were to:
> • evaluate the potential safety benefits of communication-based
> vehicle safety applications in terms of reductions in vehicle crashes
> and functional productive years saved;
How about simply making the roadways automated? The problem with
limited collision-avoidance programs is that they can only prevent two
cars from crashing, but cannot evaluate what happens after the first
collision has been avoided.
This is related to the problem of a lack of lane discipline. It is
assumed that if I move left and towards the inner portion of a roadway,
the traffic on my left will be going faster. If somebody does something
stupid, like merging onto the roadway at half my speed, I expect that I
can accelerate and move left and that I only need to worry about faster
traffic behind me. What sometimes happens is that the traffic is too
fast and I can't move left.
Adding a collision-avoidance program means that the program could decide
that my car should move left without any acceleration. It avoids the
merge-impaired collision, but kills me as I'm rammed by somebody going
much faster in the passing lane. An automated roadway would force a
merger to accelerate and not interfere with the traffic flow. All cars
would travel at the same high speed in all lanes, and nothing would
crash, until it does.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-04-30, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
> How about simply making the roadways automated?
We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
bring us:
1) The 55mph NMSL.
2) Short yellow signals for red light camera profits.
3) Speed cameras
4) IIHS recommendations
5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
6) Slow drivers scattered across all lanes is safer.
and a whole big long list of other IIHS and claybrookian idiotcy.
If automated roads become a reality it will be the nannys and control
freaks who will have power over it. Complete power to make your drive
the way they've wanted to for decades but just couldn't have enough
cops to force it and take quite that much money from you. The future
automated roads will cost dearly in tolls and will be SLOW.
Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
On 2008-04-30, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
> How about simply making the roadways automated?
We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
bring us:
1) The 55mph NMSL.
2) Short yellow signals for red light camera profits.
3) Speed cameras
4) IIHS recommendations
5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
6) Slow drivers scattered across all lanes is safer.
and a whole big long list of other IIHS and claybrookian idiotcy.
If automated roads become a reality it will be the nannys and control
freaks who will have power over it. Complete power to make your drive
the way they've wanted to for decades but just couldn't have enough
cops to force it and take quite that much money from you. The future
automated roads will cost dearly in tolls and will be SLOW.
Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
>> How about simply making the roadways automated?
>
> We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
> along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
> bring us:
> 1) The 55mph NMSL.
It's been shown that traffic quickly jams if the traffic is limited to
the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase
traffic speeds.
> 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
> cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the
intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of
them left about 50 m of room before accelerating.
> Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
> the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
> computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
> they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway
program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high
traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is
maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes.
>> How about simply making the roadways automated?
>
> We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
> along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
> bring us:
> 1) The 55mph NMSL.
It's been shown that traffic quickly jams if the traffic is limited to
the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase
traffic speeds.
> 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
> cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the
intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of
them left about 50 m of room before accelerating.
> Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
> the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
> computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
> they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway
program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high
traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is
maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>> How about simply making the roadways automated?
>>
>> We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
>> along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
>> bring us:
>> 1) The 55mph NMSL.
>
> It's been shown that traffic quickly jams if the traffic is limited to
> the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase
> traffic speeds.
But the claybrookian powers that be don't care about congestion we
suffer in (they are the rulers) if they believe it will occur at all.
They think 55mph didn't work because people didn't OBEY. That the
reason 55mph speed limits cause congestion is that too many people
drove faster. An automated road system would give them the power
to make everyone obey their wishes.
>> 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
>> cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
> I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the
> intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of
> them left about 50 m of room before accelerating.
I see it practically every day, worse now with high gas prices, and I'm
usually stuck behind them. There some lights where a brisk acceleration
will allow one to make the green of a second... these tards drive these
routes every day like I do but they don't even notice. They sloth along
and then end up stopping at both lights... arg. it's better to just
accelerate and make the green at the next light. At least at one combo I
am just punching it up now and am able to pass if there are only one or
two tards in front of me.
>> Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
>> the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
>> computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
>> they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
> It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway
> program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high
> traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is
> maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes.
Argue with a claybrookian for awhile. They remain unconvinced at the
'heat transfer' and 'fluid dynamics' models of traffice. They think that
if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>> How about simply making the roadways automated?
>>
>> We will not get the 1960s roads of the future where vehicles hummed
>> along at 100+mph. What we get is central control by the same idiots who
>> bring us:
>> 1) The 55mph NMSL.
>
> It's been shown that traffic quickly jams if the traffic is limited to
> the "drive 55" stupidity. You must decrease traffic density or increase
> traffic speeds.
But the claybrookian powers that be don't care about congestion we
suffer in (they are the rulers) if they believe it will occur at all.
They think 55mph didn't work because people didn't OBEY. That the
reason 55mph speed limits cause congestion is that too many people
drove faster. An automated road system would give them the power
to make everyone obey their wishes.
>> 5) wait 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves ( in some
>> cases clears the intersection) on green before *starting* to move.
> I watched two drivers yesterday that accelerated through the
> intersection much slower than I did, and I was in the crosswalk. One of
> them left about 50 m of room before accelerating.
I see it practically every day, worse now with high gas prices, and I'm
usually stuck behind them. There some lights where a brisk acceleration
will allow one to make the green of a second... these tards drive these
routes every day like I do but they don't even notice. They sloth along
and then end up stopping at both lights... arg. it's better to just
accelerate and make the green at the next light. At least at one combo I
am just punching it up now and am able to pass if there are only one or
two tards in front of me.
>> Automated roads is the dream of control freaks. They will not arrive at
>> the reasonable conclusion that traffic can flow at 150mph because the
>> computers are able guide everything, they will use it to enforce what
>> they see as their morally superior ideas on driving.
> It should be impossible to limit the speed without crashing the roadway
> program. Slow traffic, in anything except the right lane, and high
> traffic density is what causes braking waves. Road capacity is
> maximised when traffic is moving at the maximum speed in all lanes.
Argue with a claybrookian for awhile. They remain unconvinced at the
'heat transfer' and 'fluid dynamics' models of traffice. They think that
if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
> Argue with a claybrookian for awhile.
> They think that
> if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
> congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
> limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
The automated program should ignore the incorrect input, because moving
the traffic too slowly means that all traffic is stopped. The program
should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by
increasing traffic speeds.
Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all
of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice
that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be
fixed by increasing traffic speeds.
> Argue with a claybrookian for awhile.
> They think that
> if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
> congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
> limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
The automated program should ignore the incorrect input, because moving
the traffic too slowly means that all traffic is stopped. The program
should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by
increasing traffic speeds.
Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all
of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice
that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be
fixed by increasing traffic speeds.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Argue with a claybrookian for awhile.
>> They think that
>> if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
>> congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
>> limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
>
> The automated program should ignore the incorrect input, because moving
> the traffic too slowly means that all traffic is stopped. The program
> should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by
> increasing traffic speeds.
You don't understand. The government doesn't operate sensibly. It will
be programed so the speed-kills crowd can force everyone to drive slow.
Slow is safe. It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
> Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all
> of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice
> that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be
> fixed by increasing traffic speeds.
As if the government recognizes it has made a mistake in taking power
and attempting to manage society, the economy, and everything else it
has no business touching and reverses it in a timely manner. It does
not. Most of the big problems in the US have been big problems for 30
years or more. None have been solved and none show any sign of being
solved any time soon. They are just kicked down the road. Getting the
NMSL repealed was a huge exception and what we can consider the best
case.
Known:
1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
I'm sure that after 20-30 years the government might start to look into
the failure of the automated road system with a fixed speed limit
programing at or near 55mph.
After 25 years the government in this best case would then allow maybe
75mph speeds, but we won't get the 100+ mph travel speeds that automated
roads promised ever.
There is simply no reason for me to believe that government will behave
sensibly this time given its track record.
And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
list of possible abuses. Right now it can pull someone's DL, plates, etc
but it really can't stop them from driving without huge levels of
manpower for enforcement. With automated roads, the machines do the
enforcement.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Argue with a claybrookian for awhile.
>> They think that
>> if they prevent 'fast drivers' from catching up to them there won't be
>> congestion. That all they need is the power to enforce their speed
>> limit. Automated roads will give them that power.
>
> The automated program should ignore the incorrect input, because moving
> the traffic too slowly means that all traffic is stopped. The program
> should automatically identify the problem and fix the traffic jam by
> increasing traffic speeds.
You don't understand. The government doesn't operate sensibly. It will
be programed so the speed-kills crowd can force everyone to drive slow.
Slow is safe. It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
> Not accepting this fix means that the program could choose to cause all
> of the cars to crash into each other. At least somebody should notice
> that the expensive automated roadway doesn't work, and demand that it be
> fixed by increasing traffic speeds.
As if the government recognizes it has made a mistake in taking power
and attempting to manage society, the economy, and everything else it
has no business touching and reverses it in a timely manner. It does
not. Most of the big problems in the US have been big problems for 30
years or more. None have been solved and none show any sign of being
solved any time soon. They are just kicked down the road. Getting the
NMSL repealed was a huge exception and what we can consider the best
case.
Known:
1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
I'm sure that after 20-30 years the government might start to look into
the failure of the automated road system with a fixed speed limit
programing at or near 55mph.
After 25 years the government in this best case would then allow maybe
75mph speeds, but we won't get the 100+ mph travel speeds that automated
roads promised ever.
There is simply no reason for me to believe that government will behave
sensibly this time given its track record.
And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
list of possible abuses. Right now it can pull someone's DL, plates, etc
but it really can't stop them from driving without huge levels of
manpower for enforcement. With automated roads, the machines do the
enforcement.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
> It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
> higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
> claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
It should be hard to explain why a big expenditure isn't delivering the
expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could
fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased.
> 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
> 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
> 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable
and yielding to faster traffic when required.
> And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
> so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
> list of possible abuses.
Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
> It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
> higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
> claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
It should be hard to explain why a big expenditure isn't delivering the
expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could
fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased.
> 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
> 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
> 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable
and yielding to faster traffic when required.
> And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
> so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
> list of possible abuses.
Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
>> higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
>> claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
>
> It should be hard to explain why a big expenditure isn't delivering the
> expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could
> fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased.
Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
>> 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
>> 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
>> 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
> That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable
> and yielding to faster traffic when required.
It's the way things are. Giving the government command and control with
automated roads won't make us freer, it won't make traffic better, it
will just give government more power. The people who wield government
power are the same idiots that gave us the NMSL.
>> And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
>> so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
>> list of possible abuses.
> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality. It's been in the news a few
times in the last few years.
How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
then fail again? I can't thing of a damn thing the government did to
control something that didn't get done wrong or have significant
unintended consquences. If you can even come up with one example it will
be a huge exception to the rule.
Too many people act like someone who has been repeatedly beaten and
abused by a spouse when it comes to government... always thinking this
time it will be different. It won't. The government is an abuser and it
will continue to abuse the people until the people leave it. Automated
roads won't turn the government's abuse of us off in the area of
driving... it will just empower it further.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> It won't have the ability to make such adjustments to
>> higher speeds beyond 55mph. It will be a fixed blockage, just like the
>> claybrookians got codified into law in many states.
>
> It should be hard to explain why a big expenditure isn't delivering the
> expected value, eliminating the traffic congestion. Of course, it could
> fail during evaluative testing and not be purchased.
Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
>> 1) 55mph NMSL started in ~1974. Repealed ~1995.
>> 2) 55mph is failure and higher speeds are as safer or safer.
>> 3) The NMSL is still law of the land in many states in 2008.
> That sounds insane. I'll continue driving 100 mi/hr where reasonable
> and yielding to faster traffic when required.
It's the way things are. Giving the government command and control with
automated roads won't make us freer, it won't make traffic better, it
will just give government more power. The people who wield government
power are the same idiots that gave us the NMSL.
>> And this is just on speeds... with automated roads government will have
>> so much more power over who can go where and when that it leaves a big
>> list of possible abuses.
> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality. It's been in the news a few
times in the last few years.
How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
then fail again? I can't thing of a damn thing the government did to
control something that didn't get done wrong or have significant
unintended consquences. If you can even come up with one example it will
be a huge exception to the rule.
Too many people act like someone who has been repeatedly beaten and
abused by a spouse when it comes to government... always thinking this
time it will be different. It won't. The government is an abuser and it
will continue to abuse the people until the people leave it. Automated
roads won't turn the government's abuse of us off in the area of
driving... it will just empower it further.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
> Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
> to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway
would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used,
and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and
the waste of removing it.
>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
>
> Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
> that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality.
You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face
scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would
better-confuse the scanners.
> How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
> of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
> then fail again?
Searching database... please wait.
> Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
> to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway
would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used,
and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and
the waste of removing it.
>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
>
> Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
> that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality.
You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face
scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would
better-confuse the scanners.
> How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
> of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
> then fail again?
Searching database... please wait.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
>> to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
> It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway
> would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used,
> and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and
> the waste of removing it.
Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
out? This is government we are talking about. It copies failed ideas
frequently. I am watching government repeat the 1970s lately.
>>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
>> Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
>> that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality.
> You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face
> scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would
> better-confuse the scanners.
What is your problem? Why don't you just prove your case with a track
record of our loving government getting things right instead of
insulting me as 'paranoid' for simply projecting the past actions of
government forward. You should be showing that my idea of its track
record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat'
conspiracy/paranoid insult routine. That tells me you can't show a track
record of government success.
>> How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
>> of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
>> then fail again?
> Searching database... please wait.
Forever.
Here's a few examples of how government works:
FEMA screws up a response to Katrina = More power and bigger budget for
FEMA
Federal reserve blows a bubble around housing and it pops = proposing
more power for the federal reserve to control (manipulate for the
benefit of its owners) the economy.
Government schools fail to educate kids in the basics = more money for
government schools.
government intervention in health care has caused dramatic price
increases = proposed complete and total government control of health
care.
Now you want to solve the problems of government political interference
on the roads with the underposted speed limits and other ills with
automated road systems controlled by that same government.
I have no faith that rewarding government failure with more power and
more funding on the roads will have any different result than any other
area.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Since when has a huge expense on a failed program caused the government
>> to fix anything? Two words for you: IRAQ WAR.
> It's harder when the expenditure is regional. The automated roadway
> would probably fail during testing, if an inefficient speed were used,
> and there wouldn't be the additional expenditures for installation and
> the waste of removing it.
Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
out? This is government we are talking about. It copies failed ideas
frequently. I am watching government repeat the 1970s lately.
>>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
>> Really? We've got a government right now that is investigating scanners
>> that make Orwell's 'facecrime' a reality.
> You should pull the tinfoil hat over your face, because there are face
> scanners being installed and tested. I assumed that the tinfoil would
> better-confuse the scanners.
What is your problem? Why don't you just prove your case with a track
record of our loving government getting things right instead of
insulting me as 'paranoid' for simply projecting the past actions of
government forward. You should be showing that my idea of its track
record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat'
conspiracy/paranoid insult routine. That tells me you can't show a track
record of government success.
>> How about you demonstrate just once where the government got this sort
>> of control right and didn't use the failure to expand their control and
>> then fail again?
> Searching database... please wait.
Forever.
Here's a few examples of how government works:
FEMA screws up a response to Katrina = More power and bigger budget for
FEMA
Federal reserve blows a bubble around housing and it pops = proposing
more power for the federal reserve to control (manipulate for the
benefit of its owners) the economy.
Government schools fail to educate kids in the basics = more money for
government schools.
government intervention in health care has caused dramatic price
increases = proposed complete and total government control of health
care.
Now you want to solve the problems of government political interference
on the roads with the underposted speed limits and other ills with
automated road systems controlled by that same government.
I have no faith that rewarding government failure with more power and
more funding on the roads will have any different result than any other
area.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
> Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
> out?
I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. It's hard to use an
automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed.
>>>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>>>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
> You should be showing that my idea of its track
> record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat'
> conspiracy/paranoid insult routine.
The tinfoil should confuse the face scanners. What's wrong with trying
to use tinfoil to hide from the scanners?
> Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
> out?
I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock. It's hard to use an
automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed.
>>>> Face scanners will increase that problem too. Where's your tinfoil hat?
>>>> Pull it over your face and avoid the scanners!
> You should be showing that my idea of its track
> record is wrong, but instead you use the 'tin foil hat'
> conspiracy/paranoid insult routine.
The tinfoil should confuse the face scanners. What's wrong with trying
to use tinfoil to hide from the scanners?
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
>> out?
>
> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
Plus some of those in office probably believe gridlock would reduce
driving and be a good thing or something.
> It's hard to use an
> automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed.
Still know where people go and when.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> Since when does a failure of a program's test mean it doesn't get rolled
>> out?
>
> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
Plus some of those in office probably believe gridlock would reduce
driving and be a good thing or something.
> It's hard to use an
> automated roadway for tracking if the traffic is jammed.
Still know where people go and when.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
>> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
>> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
>
> What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
> does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually
reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars
will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of
that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget
requirements.
A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features
are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it.
I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat
vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects
an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features
seems to be part of the price tag on some cars.
Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers
be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the
drivers of older cars be excluded from using the automated roadway?
That's unlikely in the Americas, as they seem to have trouble requiring
standard driver education. People don't want to pay more than the cost
of a cereal box to get a driver's license, and they're probably not
going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that
are only available in limited areas.
>> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
>> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
>
> What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
> does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually
reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars
will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of
that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget
requirements.
A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features
are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it.
I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat
vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects
an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features
seems to be part of the price tag on some cars.
Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers
be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the
drivers of older cars be excluded from using the automated roadway?
That's unlikely in the Americas, as they seem to have trouble requiring
standard driver education. People don't want to pay more than the cost
of a cereal box to get a driver's license, and they're probably not
going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that
are only available in limited areas.
Re: Vehicle Safety Communications
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
>>> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
>>
>> What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
>> does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
> It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually
> reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars
> will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of
> that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget
> requirements.
Government mandates we have to pay for all sorts of crap on cars we
don't need. Airbags, tire pressure sensors, and whole host of other
nonsense. The people will buy the sales pitch well enough that the bill
will pass with no threat to re-election as almost always does.
> A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features
> are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it.
> I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat
> vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects
> an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features
> seems to be part of the price tag on some cars.
You'll pay for the automated road system just you are forced to pay for
that crap.
> Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers
> be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the
> drivers of older cars be excluded from using the automated roadway?
> That's unlikely in the Americas, as they seem to have trouble requiring
> standard driver education. People don't want to pay more than the cost
> of a cereal box to get a driver's license, and they're probably not
> going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that
> are only available in limited areas.
Americans today are more like dumb domesticated animals. In another era
they would have complained loudly and elected office holders would have
feared it. Today, well, they'll just sell it as 'safety' and the people
as a whole will just accept it. Sure, some like me will complain, but
they just call people like me kooks, cranks, tin foil hat conspiracy
theorists.... After all, it's wrong not to trust our loving government
to watch over us and take care of us.
On 2008-05-01, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it if it wasn't working as
>>> expected, unless the purpose is to cause gridlock.
>>
>> What companies are getting the contracts? Follow the money. Government
>> does nonsense projects just so the connected can get the contracts.
> It's probably still too expensive to purchase if it isn't actually
> reducing congestion. People will need to buy new cars, and those cars
> will need computers installed too. Government isn't paying for all of
> that, and companies lose contracts if they're not meeting budget
> requirements.
Government mandates we have to pay for all sorts of crap on cars we
don't need. Airbags, tire pressure sensors, and whole host of other
nonsense. The people will buy the sales pitch well enough that the bill
will pass with no threat to re-election as almost always does.
> A way of passing the costs is like how the costs of "safety" features
> are passed back to the manufacturers, and drivers end up paying for it.
> I don't want 20 airbags, collision-warning systems with seat
> vibrators, or brakes that automatically jam if a stupid sensor detects
> an obstruction in front of the car, but the cost of such silly features
> seems to be part of the price tag on some cars.
You'll pay for the automated road system just you are forced to pay for
that crap.
> Roadway automation would probably be much more expensive. Will drivers
> be required to pay more money to buy compatible cars, and will the
> drivers of older cars be excluded from using the automated roadway?
> That's unlikely in the Americas, as they seem to have trouble requiring
> standard driver education. People don't want to pay more than the cost
> of a cereal box to get a driver's license, and they're probably not
> going to pay more money to be compatible with automated roadways that
> are only available in limited areas.
Americans today are more like dumb domesticated animals. In another era
they would have complained loudly and elected office holders would have
feared it. Today, well, they'll just sell it as 'safety' and the people
as a whole will just accept it. Sure, some like me will complain, but
they just call people like me kooks, cranks, tin foil hat conspiracy
theorists.... After all, it's wrong not to trust our loving government
to watch over us and take care of us.
