michaeltucsonaz.bsky.social
michaeltucsonaz.bsky.social
@michaeltucsonaz.bsky.social
Reposted by michaeltucsonaz.bsky.social
Obsession with Autarky? ✅
Hates cities? ✅
Disastrous agriculture policy? ✅
Banning modern medicine? ✅
Leader that looks like a a week old ham? ✅

Welcome back Khmer Rouge
December 10, 2025 at 2:26 AM
There are plenty of recent vehicle safety improvements to be somewhat optimistic about future improvements.

Is it fast enough for me? Certainly not!

Safety improvements, including interventions on acceleration/decel are going to make a bigger impact than shitting on EVs for tire and brake dust.
December 9, 2025 at 6:33 PM
Backup cameras are now required safety equipment. Automatic emergency braking and pedestrian airbags are already implemented in nicer brands like Volvo. That’s the pathway for mandated equipment.

Speed and stoplight camera enforcement comes and goes (see Tucson). It’s often allowed for cities.
December 9, 2025 at 6:29 PM
I don’t know of any state where a city can impose a congestion fee without permission from the state legislature. NYC’s congestion tax ran through Albany at great peril.

I bet you could sell this to Sacramento. I don’t know it will fly in Arizona. Anyway, good for Cal YIMBY!
December 9, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Why make this about EVs?

EV+ICE driving style impacts tire wear. EV brake wear varies more since EVs use regen for slow deceleration.

We should enforce speed limits to cut particulate pollution w/ traffic calming, more bike/transit infrastructure, and congestion fees. EVs aren’t the problem.
December 9, 2025 at 1:29 PM
They idle “commonly” in a lot of urban driving scenarios, not literally 100% of the time.
December 9, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Who the F needs a $70,000 SUV or truck?

Some people do. And many others don’t. Both groups would be extremely pissed to have a truck stolen.
December 8, 2025 at 5:53 PM
They aren’t the whole team and they don’t run the team. If the university is willing to let the coaching staff slide…
December 7, 2025 at 11:08 PM
She did do that…
December 7, 2025 at 1:40 PM
If 1-3m is not enough for someone jaywalking across a busy road at night, then police shd be investigating a lot more drivers here. I think a lot of people would go bankrupt. A driver killing a jaywalker (or worse, a lawful ped) is far too common.

Can you share what amount you feel is fair?
December 6, 2025 at 1:58 AM
When some private driver doesn’t see a ped crossing a busy dark road (likely some combo of unsafe crossing+distracted driver missing 1 sec of brake time), they can call 911 for the victim, show sobriety, and drive away w/o consequences.

It happens every week or two in Tucson. It’s barely news.
December 5, 2025 at 10:01 PM
In the Uber fatality, Uber paid the family in a settlement (undisclosed amount assumed to be $1-3m), they suspended their AZ self-driving dev, and eventually sold the unit in 2020.

Uber’s safety driver plead guilty and got probation.

This is totally different than a distracted driver not w/ uber.
December 5, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I’m glad Uber shut down their shitty program.

That said, the Uber safety driver was like so many other humans, except a company shared lots of data with police such that her prosecution was much, much easier than for private drivers who simply plead that “didn’t see” a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
December 5, 2025 at 6:20 PM
About 7k pedestrians are killed each year by human drivers, and it’s not uncommon for human drivers to violate a pedestrian legal right of way, without charges since there are so many of these accidents and it takes time to prove endangerment.
December 5, 2025 at 6:18 PM