To be locked up over this is right.

I can't believe you got upvoted for advocating revenge (a.k.a. "retribution"). Revenge won't make the streets safer, so it won't really solve anything, and it makes a jury hesitant to convict.

No, the best way to deal with this is to permanently take away his driver's license, unless and until he proves, through a battery of psychological tests, that he no longer has a problem with distracted driving. What jury would say no to that?

Oracle insisted Oregon hire a project manager and systems integrator... Oregon refused those requests...

So Oracle took Oregon's money, and the hit on their own reputation. I wonder if it was worth it?

It's essentially extortion because at that point the organization is so many millions of dollars into it that they're willing to spend millions more to make it functional.

This is a good example of the sunk cost fallacy.

Store your spare li-ion batteries with a half charge

And at 0 degrees C.

Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.

I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)

the worst transport freeloaders are cyclists who pay zero usage taxes yet use the roads and have their own special lanes/paths built for them.

Those aren't really for bicyclists. They're for motorists, to get bicyclists out of their way, because motorists don't want to have to share the road with bicyclists.

But you're correct that bicyclists don't pay any user fees for the roads. I propose a mileage fee to cover the road damage caused by the vehicle which is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle. If a 2-ton vehicle owner pays $200 per year for the roads, then a 200-pound bicyclist going the same distance would pay 1/8th of a cent per year. Plus maybe an administrative fee of $10 per vehicle. That's fair, isn't it?

Airports are not expensive to set up and maintain...

In cities, they are extremely expensive, if you include the opportunity cost of capital. In other words, how much could you earn in a year by investing $(the monetary value of the land occupied by an airport) in the market? That is how much the land alone costs the city every year.

Phoenix uses the Proposition 400 sales tax to finance freeways, San Francisco has Proposition K, Los Angeles has Measure R, and San Diego has TransNet. Texas found that "no road [in the state] pays for itself in gas taxes and [user] fees."

Are there any cities in the USA where cars are economical without road subsidies or preferential treatment such as minimum parking requirements?

I'll never live anywhere that won't let me have a car or where for whatever reason cars are uneconomical.

Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.

In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.

And what if the driver doing 45 pulled in front of the one doing 90, leaving less than a second for the latter to react?

That's probably an unsafe lane change, unless the person going 45 couldn't see you because you were speeding around a blind curve or weaving in and out of traffic.

But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.

The one going 90 should have watched where he was going. Unless it's more important to pay attention to what's behind you than to what's in front of you?

It would be good if the USA adopted the Autobahn's rule of cruising in the right lane and passing only on the left, to separate fast moving traffic from slow moving traffic.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

The 2014 manual says, on page 69:

Driving slower than other vehicles or stopping suddenly can be just as dangerous as speeding, if not more dangerous, because you may cause a rear end collision or cause other drivers to swerve to avoid hitting your vehicle. If you are in the fast lane and you notice vehicles moving to the right lane to pass you, or a line of vehicles is forming behind you, the best thing to do is move into the right lane, when it is safe, and let the vehicle(s) pass.

From the link I posted above:

Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic...

(emphasis added)