Medalliions cost what they cost because they are limited. They are limitied because there is only so much taxi service a city can handle. Adding more cars to the street doesn't move more people, it just creates more congestion. And congestion leads to aggressive driving and such stupity as using the sidewalk as a way around traffic. A glut of taxis means aggresive actions in trying to get fares (like picking up on the wrong side of the street, etc). A glut of taxis also means it is difficult for any particular taxi service to make enough money to stay in business. Who will survive? The one that spends the least money on luxuries like proper maintenance.

Yes, this describes conditions before the taxi laws were introduced. It is why the people wanted regulation.

There are good reasons for the taxi regulations and the medallion system. Just because you want to pretend they don't exist does not mean the don't exist in reality.

Yeah, the 'transportation industry' wrote those laws. Just like the meat packing industry wrote the meat packing laws, the building industry wrote the fire codes, the coal industry wrote the clean air laws, the mining industry wrote the mining safety laws, the restaurant industry wrote the health codes, etc.

Maybe you should read up on what conditions were like before those laws (and still are in some places), then maybe you could understand why the PEOPLE wanted those laws.

By the time it gets to this stage they have already given up on trying to find you. You are already on your way to a default judgement, this is just a courtesy to you to give you an opportunity to defend yourself. Getting rid of your Facebook account would do absolutely nothing to help you, it would just make it more likely you would never see a notice.

You do realize that the standard way of getting notices to people who can't be found is by posting a notice in the newspaper, don't you? Look in a newspaper in the classified ad section for 'legal notices'. You will find all kinds of things: taxes owed, foreclosure notices, divorces, lawsuits, etc.

RTFA. The guy is deliberately making it hard for anyone to find him. That is not all that unusual. When such things happen, after several attempts to serve in person have failed, they post the notice somewhere you might see it (newspaper, Facebook, etc). Whether or not you actually see it at that point is nobodies concern. Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.

They don't have to know he accepted the papers. No different than when they post legal notices (taxes, foreclosures, etc) in the newspaper.

TFA discusses this, and they are working on cadmium-free dots, but they are harder to produce. They use indium and phosphorus for those.

According to TFA, they are nanoscale semiconductor crystals that turn blue light into narrow-spectrum greens and reds.

Seriously? First, your liability does not end where your coverage does. If you are under insured, it is you who us responsible. Second, the insurance company does not pay out of the goodness of their hearts, they pay because you pay them to. And if you have a claim, you will pay more.

The lower insurance rates with dash cams are more about fraud detection than dispute resolution.

Insurance fraud is not an accident, it is a crime. Big difference.

Also, I should have mentioned rear-end accidents caused by the lead vehicle 'stopping short'. That is always the fault of the following vehicle for not leaving enough space. There are cases where the lead car may be at fault, such as merging in too close to following cars, but that is different from just stopping short, which is what was originally discussed (brake assist causes car to stop quicker than following car without assist).

Also, there is a big difference between fault for an accident and compensation for an accident. In the insurance fraud case, the following vehicle is still 'at fault', but the leading vehicle may be denied compensation if fraud is suspected.

I didn't find any references to 'overbraking' being against the law, while following too close clearly is.

Where? Everywhere I have been the driver in back is always at fault in rear-end collisions.

It does not matter if the speed control is speed adjusting, it is still YOUR responsibility to maintain safe distance.

4 wheel drive does not affect acceleration, it affects traction. The only way to blame 4WD for unintended acceleration is if you were planning on spinning your wheels, which again is just shitty driving.

And, no, I am not missing the point, you are. The 'failure modes' you listed, whether or not some technology was involved, are failures of the DRIVER, and that is where the liability resides. That does NOT tell us who will be liable when there is no driver.

You seem highly confused as to what insurance is. Here is a clue: the 'party responsible' is NEVER the insurance company. The 'party responsible' is YOU, the insurance company is just providing the cash for you.

Its cute that you think cameras, gps, and sensor data will make it very clear what happened or eliminate disputes.

Every single one of your examples is just bad driving, and have nothing to do with autonomous features in cars.

Cruise control malfunctioning is no different than the car in front slowing. It is your job to notice and react. If you 'don't have time' then you are tailgating.

4 wheel drive? What does that have to do with acceleration?

ABS - yes, that is what is does. If you are driving in snow, leave more room. Not that complicated.

Traction control - yes, that is why it has an OFF switch

Huh? It certainly is the fault of the driver in the older car.