If you're impeding cross traffic, you've entered the intersection illegally. In most places, the sensor is placed so that you don't trigger the camera until you've physically entered the intersection, which is the same point where you're in the way of cross traffic and are likely to cause a collision. It doesn't matter if cross traffic is still able to swerve to avoid you, you're still blocking their right of way.

Courts are also not so naive as to confuse someone rear ending someone for following too closely when they're stopping at a red light for someone rear ending someone who's intentionally trying to cause an accident by slamming on their brakes on an open road or at a green light.

This is true but perhaps the law that's broken is the one that issues a license to anyone who's had a weak pulse in the past 50 years.

Is your state so backwards that running a red light means you haven't cleared the intersection rather than you entered the intersection after the red light? That's not been the case in any state I've lived in. If that is the case, then you ought to petition your legislature to fix the statute.

I don't know the timings of lights outside my usual driving areas either, but I have one simple rule that I apply to all traffic lights that keeps me from running red lights anywhere I've traveled (more than a million miles so far).

Green means proceed when the intersection is clear and it's safe to do so.

Red means stop.

Yellow also means stop because yellow is never followed by green.

If you can't come to a safe stop because of icy conditions when the light turns yellow, it's because you're driving too fast for the conditions. Do they really not teach people these things before they get a driver's license anymore? It's pretty basic common sense stuff really.

Why was this modded troll?

But those average speed over distance cameras can ONLY work in favor of the driver, they can never return a speed higher than was actually traveled. So is the complaint that they actually work and can't be tricked like real police officers in patrol cars and simpler cameras can?

As for the first case, it's not a conspiracy, it's the natural outcome.

As for the second part, the system is rigged so that nothing really changes. But it's rigged by human psychology, and exploited by politicians (and businesses, and abusive spouses, and con-artists etc.).

This is correct. Polygraphs only measure stress, they can't tell what the stress is caused by, so the results are only as useful as the polygraph operator himself. They're also only accurate in high stakes questioning, which since he's basically screwed regardless of the outcome, this may not be to him. I would rather have him questioned by a competent interviewer in the presence of a panel of 2 or 3 truth wizards if I wanted to rely on the results myself.

Don't forget that Aldrich Aimes passed multiple polygraph tests administered by the best operators we had.

Your test is a little invalid. you're using it to determine whether it should be considered a phone or a tablet here, but in order to use it as a PHONE, you don't need to be able to reach the whole screen with your thumb while holding the device in one hand. You only need to be able to reach the dialer buttons which only occupy the lower half of the screen at full size, and only one corner of the lower half of the screen when you enable the one-handed operation mode for people with smaller hands.

Diesel hybrids aren't really practical due to the way they work. Diesel engines just aren't suited to being started and stopped constantly like that, and because of the high compression ratios needed for diesel to work, it wastes quite a lot more energy every time the hybrid system has to restart the engine (then there's the heat and lack of heat problem-- my Prius often has to waste a bit of fuel just to keep the combustion system warm enough to control emissions as it is). I think that's one of the big reasons Toyota decided to use their modified pseudo-Atkinson cycle engine instead for their hybrid systems-- they spent a ton of time and money researching and developing it, and it's the most popular system today because it's so well designed. The variable compression ratio makes them a lot more efficient than diesel would be in the long run too, although the efficiency is relatively close in most cases. But I suspect that the main reason is that of emissions. You can keep the emissions much lower with gas than with diesel if that's what you tune it for.

You're right about the (ancient) notions of diesel in the U.S. though. I've seen a lot of modern Mercedes diesels here in the U.S., and unless you know what the Blu-tech badge means, I think most Americans wouldn't have any idea they weren't running on ordinary gasoline. The technology has come a long way since the old days, although since American trucks are about the only diesels most people here see, they probably believe the smoke-belching, noisy behemoths are the only way diesel can run even today.

It's less of an issue, but it's still an issue because that's the way physics works. There are many benefits to diesel engines-- and consumers here in the U.S. should be more aware of them-- but for whatever reason, we're not. I've always wondered why that is. Any idea?

I'm confused about getting stranded looking for a charger on a back country road with a gas/electric hybrid. I've never once needed a charger for mine and don't know of anyone else who has either.

In terms of work done per fuel consumed, gas engines are much more efficient under heavy load than under light load, so the increased efficiency here is partially an illusion. That's why cars like the Prius always try to run the ICE at a higher load at a lower RPM, which the e-CVT works brilliantly for.