From the same page, the minimum liability requirements are:
$15,000 for injury/death to one person.
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person.
$5,000 for damage to property.

I have no idea if most people have way higher liability insurance than that. If they *don't*, then it seems like the bond "workaround" could be reasonable. I admit I'm not running out and doing it right now, but it is tempting. (I *think* I have the minimum required insurance on my cars, only one of which I actually drive regularly.)

Your liability coverage pays for bodily injury and property damage that you cause in accidents. Don't get caught short by reducing your liability limits to the state minimums. Buying more coverage might seem like an odd way to save, but the benefit comes if you have a costly claim, which can put your personal assets at risk. Buy standard 100/300/100 coverage, which pays for bodily injury up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, and property damage up to $100,000. If you have a high net worth, boost bodily injury to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident.

At least in some states, if you had the money, you *could* do without insurance. For example, in CA, you can have one of the following:

* Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
* Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
* DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
* Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

from:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...

If you go by the 30-year price curve instead of the 10-year, then there is little fear of things crashing down. It smooths out the ~15 year cycles. If the paper appreciation is higher than the expected 30-year, just use the 30-year curve number in your head and then if things "crash" you can just say, "it only came down to the price I expected it to land at. I wasn't ready to sell during the bubble."

Who should have been wearing reflective gear and walking on the side of the road that has oncoming traffic. Like the Highway Code says should be done.

I've had a few idiots who decide to dash across the road from a darkened doorway in front of me like a fucking panicked rabbit just as I'm driving along the street. You saw me coming, with my headlights on and everything, right? But it is somehow my fault if I hit you.

How many groceries can you carry?

How often do you go grocery shopping?

Those of us with paid off cars and the corresponding low low insurance rates would tend to disagree.

Nobody forced you to buy a new car, you could have bought an old one.

Criminals, like everyone else, need light to see what they're doing. And using a flashlight calls attention to them if they're in someone's yard. This is the reason why burglary rates go up during gibbous and full moons.

So, to find out, the study team looked at San Antonio, Tex., from 2001 to 2005, a city of more than a million people for which exhaustive crime data is available. The team crunched nightly crime data, noting rain, daylight, indoor vs. outdoor locations and other environmental effects unaccounted for in past efforts. Murder happens too rarely in San Antonio to give a statistical signal, so the team looked at assaults, burglary, theft, drugs and vice crimes, traffic crimes, and "other disturbances," totaling about 130,000 incidents a year.

"It is the very error of the moon," wrote Shakespeare in Othello. "She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

Maybe in Venice, but not in San Antonio, the study concludes. "Substantive lunar effects on crime were not found in the data analyzed here," say the report. "Although popular culture, folk lore, and even certain occupational lore suggested the 'freaks' come out during full moons, this phenomenon was not reflected in San Antonio police data as used here."

And this is why I rent an apartment instead of "owning" a house. A house is a terrible, awful, horrific "investment" and real estate only makes sense for the already rich.

Their perception of danger is of no concern to me. I'm concerned with the actuality of danger. They are adults and not children who ought to be afraid of the dark. If they don't feel safe outside then I'd suggest they spend their money improving their policing or move some place where they feel safer. Again, if they are scared of nothing (and the data indicates that they are) and decide to stay home rather than face the night then I don't see an actual problem.

Real security isn't going to come from a bunch of wasteful street lamps. At best it is security theater and it definitely is a huge waste of resources.

The connection between light and crime may not be what most of us think it is, but the connection between light and our sense of safety is exactly what it's always been. Those Southampton researchers who measured crime rates in Wandsworth also found that the new lights "provide[d] reassurance to some people who were fearful in their use of public space," particularly women. Lighting increases a sense of community, and community pride. It brings us outdoors in our neighborhoods, helps us get to know each other. Fear keeps us out of the alley, and attraction to light and what it represents draws us to illuminated streets.

Ok, if that is true then where is the actual problem?

So we should waste money and resources and pollution lighting up roads so you can bike home? I'm all for biking but I think this is a needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few situation.

That's what markets are for. If there's a high demand for robot operators in the medical industry, then more people will sign up for the money. That assumes that the cartels controlling access to the medical professions don't block this.

This is an idiotic idea, as it presumes that nowadays robotic surgery is somehow a commodity available to the masses.

modern drones don't use a memory card, they stream via an ad hoc connection or as a wifi host to your cellphone.

Those were the ordinances that the guy was charged with violating.