The initial thought was he pulled out illegally. Maybe out of favoritism, they may have assumed she was going a reasonable speed of say 60 to 65. Instead, she was driving with over 4 times the Kinetic Energy of the posted speed limit. If you physically analyze all the factors, you can roughly estimate both perspectives. She was supposedly going 107 at the time of impact, I'm going to call B.S. on that and say it's likely closer to 90. As a 107 MPH crash can easily put the engine in the trunk. Now lets do an analysis. First her minimum slowdown distance from 113 mph to 90 is 175ft assuming she was in an 2005 Audi A4, calculated via Kinetic Energy. Her friend had enough time to scream a full sentence at her, so we can assume a HORRIBLE reaction time of 2 seconds, that equates to 113 mph * 2 seconds =~ 330 ft. Adding up her frame of reference we get that he was mostly pulled out when she was over 500 ft away. Now even the worst driver is going to peek 1 second before actually accelerating on the road, (a good driver initial peek is closer to 4 seconds left-right-left, vs left and go). Lets assume he's a bad driver and that puts her at over 600 ft away when he started pulling out. At the posted speed that's 7.4 seconds without stopping for her to reach his location, which means he should've had over 10 seconds to pull out and get up to 55mph, without her apply the brakes assuming she was going the posted limits. That's not an unreasonable pull out, and probably something he's done before on a similar road (without issue). In actuality he had 5 seconds to get to 100 mph, which is impossible.

Yes it is, but it's best to think of this as a live comedy sketch.

We already have "shatterproof" screens, but they are made of scratch-able plastic. Glass already won this battle.

My bad this is a better article. Not every state is covered, but some are. https://wallethub.com/edu/ride...

Uber doesn't, Metromile (a newer insurance company with mixed reviews) provides coverage in CA, IL, and WA.

Shoot I read the first article, which is the wrong article. Thank you for catching that. I'm surprised Taxi companies can legally do that to their employees... So, Taxi drivers are only better off because the culture encourages tipping and the fact they've real car insurance. Health care varies, though a common theme apparently is to provide health care that is pretty much a piece of unusable paper. The gate fees also mean taxi companies make just as much as uber per car. Where car insurance is the only redeeming factor...

I agree Taxi drivers are actually in a lousy position too considering they make $10~11/hr. Though Uber drivers are worse off, because they've to worry about the cost of the vehicle their driving. Using income and labor statistics I easily found half the gross income for Taxi companies goes to their drivers. The next quarter goes to car operating. The remaining quarter needs to handle various insurances, taxes, medallion loan payments, etc... It's not surprising some Taxi companies are cutting health care. The alternative is to charge more from complaining customers... All said and done it's obvious Uber is cutting corners, because they're taking home 20% of the gross income, whereas Taxi companies would be lucky to bring in 10%, despite their monopoly. So Uber's charging less, taking twice the cut, and avoiding responsibility, this results in really screwing a driver over both in net pay and if they end up in an accident.

Right, that's what I was calculating. The energy has to come from somewhere. The most money you could save per kWh is by taking power from off-peak and using it at on-peak times. Which is ~40% savings during the summer and ~20% during the winter, but those savings will never pay for the battery because the cost per kWh is too high.

Looks like I used the wrong data off PG&Es website. SCE charges up to 40% more during the summer period. Though that at best means you're still out $13K.

Right, and we're back to square one with saving money. So-Cal charges about %20 more during peak usage. The average yearly cost per kW is ~20 cents. Peak hours are from noon-to-six, only 60 percent of business hours or less. A $25K battery will be capable of offsetting ~100kWh of usage for 10 warranted years (ignoring the obvious battery decay). Do the math and the battery will only "SAVE" ~8K, but in reality you're losing $17K