Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

e:

om

on a 24% efficient solar cell. If NovaSolix can get to that 90% number, th at?s 67 miles of sunlight driving. The average daily miles driven i n the USA is about 40 miles per person."

s per year.

Actually, i drive more due to limited charging stations and keep making a dditional trips to keep charge up. With on-board solar charger, i can prob ably drive less.

vel 1 charger onboard.

d to only half of the solar energy (probably less than 30%). Carbon nanotu be tuning to the visible and IR region can capture upwards of 40%. Several companies demonstrated the potential, some had real prototype. I guess the world is full of "nonsense", moron.

astering the grow of CNT-RA, Moron. Is "Moron" a common way to greet peopl e in your culture. If so, i respect your culture, Moron.

If you have to call someone a moron to get your point across, you have alre ady failed.

Ok but what if the driver is unknown? The points are awarded to the driver, not to the registration holder, right?

When you have been photographed at a light that was red (over there always are two photographs, one when your car is with the front wheels on the line and the second one is when you have way passed the line), and you say "but the light was green", does the judge even listen to you?

I could understand that when the claim was made by a person (although normally the judges here usually do believe statements made by police officers under oath in procedures like that), but a clear photographic evidence cannot be so easily waived away here. It is not like OJ Simpson trial here.

Here, yes. The "but it was my wife who was driving" thing does not even enter the scene. The owner gets the fine and it is his own business to have it paid by whoever he things should pay it for him.

The only exceptions are stolen cars and rented/leased cars. But there has to be a signed contract on file, not just some verbal agreement.

I presumed the cleverness that when someone writes "here" and he describes some different situation than the reader is familiar with, the reader understands that "here" is describing a different place than his own.

Apparently that is too much to presume here in this group.

No, everything in that category as well. Red lights, passing on the right, speeding up to 30 km/h, etc. Dangerous driving that warrants the car to be stopped by police would be different, but that actually is a "band" because when it is so dangerous that the car can only be stopped with a lengthy pursuit this is normally not done.

Then you do not even know about the "Mulder law"... which I explained a little elsewhere. The law that states that for those kind of offenses there is no possibility for appeal when you have not paid the fine.

license

t request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminat e one self or family

ith

tried.

, too.

out

p to the DMV to assign points. The judge can't waive them.

The registration holder is not involved. If he/she was not driving they on ly need to state that in a hearing. These are usually not significant fine s. The biggest hassle is having to deal with it in person. There are HOV violations which become significant very quickly. We have some roads that are exclusively HOV. The first fine is a token $25 or something, the secon d $100 or so and the third over $200. They also assess points for HOV viol ations. Again, go to court and offer testimony that you were not the drive r. I believe many HOV cameras will catch the faces in the car because they want to count heads of people and not manikins. So tough to argue your wa y out if you were driving.

It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

ied.

too.

he judge kept asking me if I had anything else to say and I thought that me ant he thought I hadn't said enough to get off so I continued with basicall y the same information. The third time through he stopped me by say, "The light was green? Not guilty."

to do is create a "reasonable doubt" which not being able to identify the driver satisfies.

In my case there was no camera, there was a cop sitting at the other side o f the intersection at night in the rain. The intersection was blocked off because of flooding and I had to go around a vehicle in the left turn lane after waiting for all the jerks behind me to go around in my way. I finall y reached the intersection the left turn light went off as I entered the in tersection (no yellow caution like you get normally). Before I exited the intersection I expect the light on the blocked side turned green. Turns ou t one of the sitting police cars with their lights flashing was waiting to make a right turn.

So I went through all this, potentially in more detail than I give here and the third time through the judge was looking for a way out.

Everyone testifying is under oath. The courts believe cops over others bec ause they are "trained observers".

When you talk about "clear" photographic evidence, that is the problem. Th e evidence is not clear. If the person can not be identified you have no e vidence to tie an individual to the offense. It would appear that in Engla nd there is a different sense of justice than in the US. The crime itself has rights of being attached to someone no matter whether the person is gui lty or not. The crime can not go without SOMEONE being punished.

They had photos at the OJ Simpson trial? I must have missed that.

Interesting that you seem to consider $200 a significant fine. $200 is at the low end of traffic violation fines here. E.g. jumping a red light in a car is $265 plus $10 admin fee. (we used to have those special lanes but they turned out to be in violation of some other law and instead of fixing that they were just opened to everyone)

Well, when it would be too easy to escape the points by just stating it is unknown who was driving, that would not last too long here.

y only need to state that in a hearing. These are usually not significant fines. The biggest hassle is having to deal with it in person. There are HOV violations which become significant very quickly. We have some roads t hat are exclusively HOV. The first fine is a token $25 or something, the s econd $100 or so and the third over $200. They also assess points for HOV violations. Again, go to court and offer testimony that you were not the d river. I believe many HOV cameras will catch the faces in the car because they want to count heads of people and not manikins. So tough to argue you r way out if you were driving.

on

nts MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting aro und.

Yes, that is my point. Where you are it seems to be about holding someone responsible even if they aren't guilty. That's a big no-no here. We like to hold the correct person responsible.

The reason things have changed here is that it was too easy to escape with claims like "unknown who was driving". These traffic offenses (not crimes) are too common to bring every case to court, the courts were way overloaded by people doing that. There were standard letters online to send in reply to any ticket received, just to clog up the system.

Sure as it is now, sometimes someone may be incorrectly found guilty of something they really did not do, but these cases are way outnumbered by those who really were at fault but are just trying to escape from it.

It just means you should not lend out your car to just about anybody, unless you can trust them to behave well and pay you back when they have incurred a fine (or you are prepared to live with that).

Besides that, the goal of the system is not to strike the not-guilty owner of a car for what some other driver has done, the goal is to keep everyone abiding to the rules. When you drive according to the rules, you normally won't get tickets. I get maybe one every 3 years, mostly for things like driving 5 km/h too fast on a highway.

That's rather a bizarre solution to the problem of cameras providing insufficient evidence to convict a person, change the rules to allow conviction without sufficient evidence. They only have to prove a crime was committed, not who committed it.

Good thing they don't have such rules regarding more offenses. A bank gets robbed and the cops pick a known bank robber and put him away for another 10 years.

Yes, by all means obtain justice at any cost. No, wait, that's not justice. Hmmm...

Ahhh, so the crime was not running a red light, or going 5 over the posted speed limit, it was lending your car too casually. Maybe this will help justify parents beating their children.

Uh, everyone except for the justice system.

What does that have to do with anything? According to you it doesn't matter how YOU drive. What matters is how your car drives.

What happens in your country when your Tesla is summoned and it strikes a person?

Sure, that is how things go here. There is sufficient indication that the car registered to someone was used in some traffic offense, so it is up to that person to ensure this does not happen.

That is something completely different. However, when the security cameras in the bank took a picture of said known bank robber, AND the mobile phone system detected his phone being in the area, he would have a difficult time.

When you lend your car to someone, and that someone gets a ticket, you apparently have done something unwise. It is like lending your gun to someone (who does not have a pemit) and then finding they use it to kill someone. Do you get away with that?

We have a democratic system that defines the laws. The justice system operates according to these laws. When there were some "rules" 100-200 years ago that do not fit what is happening today, they are changed.

Of course, as the system is not a direct democracy but rather a representative democracy via a multi-party system that forms a coalition governement, any decisions made do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the man in the street.

No, it matters how I drive my car, and when my car is detected as driving outside of the rules it is me that is responsible as I have registered it. Unless it has been stolen or formally rented. That is not so difficult to understand, isn't it?

Then you are responsible for that. Not Tesla, at least not immediately. They may be when there is deemed to be some violation of reasonable security or quality practice at their end.

he points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitti ng around.

g it is

omeone responsible even if they aren't guilty. That's a big no-no here. W e like to hold the correct person responsible.

with

imes)

oaded

eply

sufficient evidence to convict a person, change the rules to allow convicti on without sufficient evidence. They only have to prove a crime was commit ted, not who committed it.

Wow! Such a petty thing too. Here we have an emphasis on justice. The id ea that the state has only a half assed obligation to collect evidence and prosecute the guilty rather than holding accountable someone nearby the rea l culprit just because we need to find someone to blame is not part of our judicial system.

gets robbed and the cops pick a known bank robber and put him away for anot her 10 years.

"Being in the area"??? Again, very lame evidence as it includes a great ma ny innocents. Bank robbers wear masks and other means of disguise. So in reality it is not so different.

t.

tice. Hmmm...

ted speed limit, it was lending your car too casually. Maybe this will hel p justify parents beating their children.

"Unwise" is not criminal... well, at least not here.

If you legally lend your gun to someone here in the US and that person kill s someone with your guy, you are not charged with murder.

I like the way you put it, "Do you get away with that?" as if there was som ething to "get away" with.

The democratic process does not affect the justice system. Our courts were derived from English courts and even adhere to precedent of English law. We still have much of that and virtually none of the process of the courts is shaped by law.

atter how YOU drive. What matters is how your car drives.

No, it is very clear. You just agreed with me. What matters is how the ca r is driven, not how any individual person drives it.

a person?

I see summon mode as opening a huge can of worms legally on several fronts. I expect it to be banned very quickly in many jurisdictions. Autopilot h as not yet been banned because there is a driver in the seat who is suppose d to be in charge. With summon mode it will be very easy for the user to n ot be able to even see what is going on, much less be in control.

You can keep on bickering about this forever, but let's just conclude that things work differently in different countries, and that you will have to adapt to that when you live in or visit a country.

That works the other way as well. Here, when you make some minor offense and you are held standing by a policeman, it is customary to enter into a discussion with the policeman about the severity of the event, and whether it is warranted to arrest them or if a warning is more appropriate. I see that Dutch tourists in other countries end up in jail for doing things that, even when they are not allowed, would get them only a firm talk and a warning here.

You are funny. No one has been twisting YOUR arm in this discussion. The issue is not about the severity of the offense. The issue is whether you h ave a basic right to the presumption of innocence in the absence of evidenc e "beyond a reasonable doubt". In this country that right extends to all m atters in criminal law regardless of the severity of the punishment. Other wise the cameras simply become a way to levy additional taxes which is a st ated reason for having them in many jurisdictions.

You can talk about the Dutch customs or any other country, but that is not the issue we have been discussing. We have been discussing the level of ev idence required to convict. Cameras that do not show a face or other clear evidence of WHO is driving is not sufficient evidence to convict in this c ountry, the US.