You should not be forced to move out of your home just because the houses in your neighborhood got bought up by rich folks.

If you think people should reap the benefits of real estate appreciation without paying the costs, then you are in favor of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

You propose...to move some money from the road fund to the schools -- sacrificing potential traffic problems in the name of education...

Traffic congestion, just like any other kind of shortage, is proof that the price "is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand." That's easy to fix.

Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement.

In other words, Prop 13 protects millionaires.

I forgot, why do we need to protect millionaires? Why can't they take their windfall profits and move into less expensive accommodations?

Will the voting system be plurality or a preferential system like Instant Runoff or Condorcet?

Please suggest a single word for "collission caused by negligence".

Please explain why such detail is necessary. Simply the word "collision" is all that's needed for this headline.

if you can't create enough market demand, don't go to the government demanding special treatment.

Actually, there's a very good market-based reason to go to the government for labelling: the free market works better when consumers have information.

I find the term 'car accident' to be basically synonymous with terms like 'car wreck' or 'car crash' and not necessarily to be indication of severity or fault of the people involved.

This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!

The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.

Please stop politicizing the headlines, Slashdot.

The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham...In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

In order to prove the above is correct, you also need to prove that demand for petroleum is perfectly inelastic. Good luck with that!

Evolution requires death...

No, evolution doesn't require death, but death assists evolution by preventing some individuals from procreating.

...selective pressure, serious things like that..

Developing a skill that's in demand by society gives the individual a greater chance at passing on his/her genes, and that's evolution.

Sadly, states passing laws about sticking to the right lane unless passing are not helping much.

The reason for that is because people driving slowly in the left lane arguably aren't obstructing traffic, because traffic can still get around them. In Europe, they closed that loophole by making it illegal to pass on the right, and therefore someone driving slowly in the left lane is irrefutably obstructing traffic.

Public transit is a fantastic option if you live in a large city and don't leave it very often, but it's no where near good enough to replace a car for a lot of people.

Why can't they live in large cities?

...you won't lose any of the fat you have while building muscle.

On a calorie restricted diet, your body can pull calories from fat in order to build muscle. But you won't build muscle quickly. This is why body builders go through a cutting phase.

I offer myself as proof. Before I started biking, I weighted about 150. A year later, I was still 150 lbs but had bigger quads and a smaller waist. I had lost fat and gained muscle simultaneously.

- Lanes ending, either due to construction or accident.

Which means the volume of cars exceeds the capacity of the remaining lanes.

- Major exit ramps onto another road with traffic issues.

Same thing.

- A single slow driver can wreak significant havoc just by cruising down the right lane at 45 mph. The reason is that now the not-quite-as-slow 55 mph driver pulls into the next lane over to pass them, forcing the 60 mph driver into the left lane...

That sounds like an unsafe lane change by the 55 mph driver.

- Sun glare and other natural conditions slowing down drivers, especially timid drivers.

Remember, if you can't see the road due to conditions such as fog or sun glare, you are required by law to pull off the road until conditions improve.

In fact, it would be highly dangerous to go 55mph. You'd get rear ended in no time not to mention road rage.

In the presence of lawbreakers like the ones you describe, driving is unsafe at any speed. But don't worry, getting rear ended with a closing speed of 15 mph (the difference between 55 and 70 mph) is much safer than a side impact collision or a head-on collision.

On the Autobahn, it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit while others whip around you at tremendous speeds. The reason is because slow moving vehicles stay to the right, and fast moving vehicles always pass on the left. Consistency is good for safety. So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane. In fact, it's the law in some places.