Original post made
on Dec 28, 2007
This story contains 525 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
All good code.
Yes they are all ok except this one.
"AB 118, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, increases the annual vehicle-registration fee and the smog-impact fee in order to provide revenue for research and development of alternative fuels. Consumers can expect to pay from $3 to $11 more when registering their vehicles. This law is in effect from July 2008 through 2016."
As told to me personally by this moron Nunez, He said "THIS IS OUR MONEY" meaning that he has no concept other than your money is his money. VOTH THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE.
The science and technology is already there for any alternative fuel imaginable. This reminds me of the scam where Lear of jet fame offered a prize for a steam powered bus, and got one. New science? No, it was a 90 year old Dobel design. Race cars have been burning alky for years, and during WWII European cars ran on CO from charcoal burners.
Pity the worker who depends on a car to get to work - this just cut into her life a bit deeper.
All bad code.
Private capital is funding commercialization of previously developed technology but academics need government and foundation support to pursue more basic research. Recent research has gone way beyond what was "already there".
If research in 2008-2016 funded by this bill leads by 2020 to increased use of alternative fuels sufficient to depress the average price of a gallon of gasoline (or its alternative equivalents) by 20 cents, then anyone driving a 30 mpg vehicle more than 12,000 miles a year will save about $80 on fuel every year after 2020. That's a pretty good return on a nine-year investment totaling $27-$99.
What would really help is raising the driving age from 16 to at least 18, but preferably 21.
If we can't stop the kids drinking, which is tricky) we can stop them driving.
The US is allowing very immature individuals drive for reasons that are long obsolete. The idea that teenagers need to be able to help drive the farm equipment in their long summer vacations doesn't apply anymore. Other countries wait until kids are at least bordering on leaving high school before they can even get the equivalent of a permit let alone a full licence.
It is much too easy for a teen to get behind the wheel of a car. Make it tougher and we would all be safer.
If you lower the price of gasoline 20 cents but double the price of food, someone takes it in the shorts. Put money, if you must, into batteries, eliminating traffic flow restrictions and better parking.
Parent: Hear! Hear!
Yeah, and old people too! Anybody over, say, 75, should have their license taken away. If we can't keep them from losing their reaction time and observation skills, we can at least get them off the road. We'd all be safer.
Gosh it sounds dumb when put that way. There may be a case for raising the driving age to 17 or 18 (as it is in many other countries); but 21 seems way over to the top. A 19 year old can easily be living on his/her own, married, perhaps with children, holding down employment, and of course eligible both to vote and to serve in the military. Might want to be careful about limiting the rights of full citizens by a broad categorization like age.
Orwell would be proud!
And soon helmets will be required for anyone going outdoors (notice the kids ice skating on the home page). Maybe Simitian is working on that law right now!
I'm just glad I wasn't born any later. This city/country is getting creepier by the day.
I once almost had a driving incident when peeling and eating a hard-boiled egg. Simitan should take a look at passing a law against that.
We need a driving similator that allows a full test of driving skills, including hazardous situations, without puting an examiner in peril. Flight similators are accepted for a part of the required training for pilot licenses. I am 75 years old, and I hope I continue to recognize my limitations, but I would accept the objective limits on my driving privileges based on similator performance.
> If research in 2008-2016 funded by this bill leads by
> 2020 to increased use of alternative fuels
> That's a good return on investment ..
that's a pretty big IFFFF.
As a frequent visitor to Palo Alto (I have worked for the government in England for the past ten years) I agree completely with Parent regarding raising the driving age. High school students over here simply do not drive to school. My children take the school bus every day and the rest of the time they either walk (gasp!), rely on public transportation or let their parents drive them around. My son, who attends the University of San Francisco and is home for winter break, just got his driver's license today - he is nearly nineteen and I feel he is ready to drive. I cannot imagine letting sixteen year olds drive.
Walter, we agree on simulators.
Furthermore, it is a *scientific fact* that the teenage brain does not cognate consequences for behavior in nearly as efficient a fashion as those who are a bit older. It's foolish to put a two ton machine that travels 100mph in the hands of teenagers, just as it is foolish to put that same machine in the hands of a senior citizen whose reflexes are severely atrophied.
ONLY WISH THAT THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN MASSACHUETTS. OUR DAUGHTER WAS KILLED MAY 6TH 2006, SHE WAS 26 YEARS OLD. THE MAN WHO KILLED HER WAS A REPEAT DRUNK DRIVER, WITH A PRIOR 3 X'S CONVICTED AND WENT TO SOBRIETY SCHOOL X'S 2 THIS INCIDENT WAS HIS 4TH TIME, GETTING CAUGHT. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK THAT HE DROVE DRUNK AND DIDN'T GET CAUGHT???
HE WAS DRUNK GOING THE WRONG WAY DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND HIT SEMI HEAD ON WITH MY DAUGHTER.
THE DEFENCE IN THIS TRIAL WAS THAT HIS CLIENT WAS SO DRUNK THAT HE BLACKED OUT AND THAT MY DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE AVOIDED HIM. ONLY GOES TO SHOW YOU THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LAW MAKERS HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS WANT TO KEEP THEIR OBJECTIVES OPEN WHEN THEY GET CAUGHT DRUNK DRIVING.
HIS SENTENCE IS 8-10 YEARS ANOTHER 10 YEARS UNDER HOUSE ARREST, 4 MONTHS LOCK-DOWN IN ALCHOL REHAB AND ANOTHER 6 MONTHS IN ANOTHER ALCHOL REHAB. HE WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER 2 BUT THE JURY DIDN'T HAVE THE HEART TO CONVICT THIS 57 YEAR OLD MAN OF THAT.
put breathalizers in cars, if they malfunction, call Triple A - the inconvenience would be worth it
While it gripes my libertarian soul, cars will eventually have personal constraint systems that can restrict any driver to compensate for his limitations. Drunks could be restricted, with a gps interlock, to work to home at appropriate hours. They might even have to call a central point to have someone check them for alcohol before the car will start. Teens could have privileges gradually increased as their ability improved, while old farts could be gradually brought down. Perhaps a circuit that would interpret a panic push on the accelerator as a braking attempt. We get touchy-feely crap from Simitian instead of reasoned, real improvements.