If you don't brake, the person following you has plenty of time to notice your bumper getting closer. It's only when you brake that the brake lights are needed. That's why they don't light up when you're coasting.

"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."

Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.

"An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia evaluated effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing by about a second and then introducing red light cameras. While the longer yellow reduced red light violations by 36 percent, adding camera enforcement further cut red light running by another 96 percent."

Source: Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40(1):327-33.

What's unsafe is drivers of fully-loaded semi-trailers who disobey the Basic Speed Law by driving the posted speed limit in inclement conditions.

Remember, the posted speed limit assumes ideal conditions, not the one you're describing. It's unsafe to drive the posted speed limit on ice or in heavy fog, and you can be cited for it.

Suppose they had used a Bayesian algorithm which determined on its own that tea party members were the most likely tax dodgers and therefore disproportionately picked tea party members for audits. Would that be against the law? If so, they would then have to remove the person's political party from the criteria the algorithm can use, just to stay within the law. The algorithm would no longer work so well, so it seems counterproductive to exclude certain criteria just because it involves a protected group of people.

By that measure, endorphins, epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and so on are also inputs.

The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time.

That isn't exactly true. Analog-to-digital converters, true random number generators, fluctuations in the power supply, RF fields, cosmic rays and so on mean that in real life, the same set of inputs won't always generate the same set of outputs, whether in androids or in their meaty analogs.

- Most important: I prefer somebody be employed

Do you realize that's the very definition of a Luddite?

Solar and wind can be primary energy sources in that they can provide a majority of electrical generation. With a smart grid (which uses variable pricing to keep demand below the level of supply), you only need a small amount of emergency nighttime power to prevent brownouts/blackouts.

They've spent billions on mass transit, they've spend tens of millions on bike paths... The net result has been the same amount of traffic...

That's not surprising. Increasing transportation capacity does not reduce traffic congestion in the long term.

All of that planning, and they still need to build a $3B bridge to deal with the 5+ hours of traffic jam going over the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA.

If they think the only way to eliminate the shortage of road space for all the motorists who want to use it is to add capacity by building a new bridge, they don't understand the Hamburger Analogy.

If you don't build a freeway and people still need to get to that place, they will do it via surface arterials or neighborhood streets causing the neighborhoods to become much less safe due to through traffic that should be on a freeway.

Or they'll carpool or take mass transit and let someone else drive. Or they'll ride a bike and pass all that traffic. Or they'll move closer to where they need to be. Or they'll work a different shift when traffic is lower.

You bring up a good argument for eliminating minimum parking requirements that cities force upon developers and business owners. If there were less parking available at your destination, you might try to avoid the busier periods so you can find a parking space (if parking is unpriced) or cheaper parking, or you would find a different way to get there.

I don't know of any case where variable tolls set at market equilibrium have increased traffic congestion on surface streets.

A incorrect solution would be taxing this food beyond reason...

Instead of taxing food, allowing the market to determine the price would make bringing in food from outside more profitable, encouraging suppliers to do so, provided there isn't a monopoly/oligopoly on food.

If travel demand was a liquid as you thought that congestion would be a self fixing problem. You would pay this extra tax in time and frustration and before long demand for the road would go down to reasonable limits.

And that's exactly what's happening. The amount of traffic congestion may be more than what you consider to be reasonable, but obviously not more than what others tolerate or they wouldn't be sitting in traffic and contributing to it. For them, sitting in traffic is better than their feasible alternatives.

Then the tolls came in and the tunnel is now largely unused with less than 1/6th of the forecast traffic...

Then the tolls are too high--above market equilibrium. Remember, I said the tolls should be "a variable price set at the market equilibrium rate".

But like I explained, we are already paying market price.

Obviously not, or there wouldn't be a shortage of road space for the people who want to use it. Remember, when demand exceeds supply, it's because the price is below what people are willing to pay--the "market price."

So you price the roads till you remove congestion, and you've eliminated *necessary* journeys.

No, because journeys were already eliminated due to congestion.