2/10    About the Lexus that crashed because of (supposedly) a stuck
        accelerator padel, why didn't the driver simply put the transmission
        in Neutral?  If the cop passenger had time to press at least one
        button to dial 911, wait for the call to be picked up, and had a
        10-second-plus conversation with the operator (which was played back
        in media reports), wasn't there much more than enough time to tell the
        driver to shift to Neural, or simply do it himself even if he's at the
        back seat?
        \_ Yes, explain the concept of neutral to George Weller.
        \_ Parking brake not in reach?
           \_ You don't use the parking brake to put the transmission to
              Neutral.
              Neutral.  -- OP
              \_ I'd use the parking brake if i was trying to stop my car
                 BAMN.
              \_ are you "my house isn't on fire cos i live in an apt" guy?
                 \_ If the foot brake, which uses brakes on all four wheels,
                    wasn't strong enough to stop the car, how would the
                    parking brake, which uses brakes on two wheels, be strong
                    enough to stop it?  OTOH putting the transmission in
                    Neutral would have disengaged the engine from the driving
                    wheels which would have stopped the car from accelerating.
                    It might have blew up the engine, but that shouldn't be
                    a concern at that moment. -- OP
                    \_ There were two solutions:
                       1. Put the car in neutral.
                       2. Turn off the engine.
                       Both of these would have worked, but apparently no
                       one thought of these.
                       \_ Worthy of Darwin Award?
                          \_ What is the award for getting other people killed?
        \_ Actually, all you have to do is mash on the brake, this will stop
           even a muscle car going 100 mph, according to Car and Driver:
           http://tinyurl.com/yckntxs

2/10    Does anyone have an authoritative URL that shows the % of people
        in the Bay Area who commute via foot, bike, car, BART, and Caltrains?
        In particular I'd like to look at trend as well.
        \_ http://www.sfced.org/about-the-city/urban-data-and-statistics/commute-patterns has some.  -tom
        \_ Guys, guys, guys, I asked a simple question. What % of Bay Area
           traffic goes to autos, bikes, foot, BART, and Caltrain? I'm
           not asking you guys to debate the merits of BART. Can you help?
        \_ I don't have the % but this shows BART is pathetic:
           http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/bay-area-transit-efficiency-how-bart-caltrain-vta-light-rail-and-muni-metro-stack-up
           \_ that only talks about ridership per mile, which is more of a
              statement on the region's population density rather than
              some real statement of how effective a transportation mode
              the rail systems it discusses are.
              \_ What metric would you use other than dollars per
                 ridership-mile?  Unless the metric is "how often the
                 trains line up with the black squares on the platform,"
                 doors line up with the black squares on the platform,"
                 BART is going to lose badly compared to other transit
                 systems, including the others in the Bay Area.  -tom
                 \_ What is the dollars per ridership mile stat? -ausman
                 \_ I agree. Driving is far superior to BART.
           \_ Bart is pathetic indeed.
           \_ Here is one reason why BART can't increase its capacity on
              existing tracks by running trains closer together and at higher
              speed.  Blame General Electric:
              http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2006/news20060616a.aspx
              \_ No, blame BART for paying $80 million for vaporware that,
                 even if it worked, would further complicate their already
                 complicated and idiosyncratic system, instead of doing
                 something rational like "get faster trains".  (Problem is,
                 you can't get faster trains because BART's too
                 idiosyncratic.)  -tom
                 \_ The above article seems to imply the existing trains are
                    already capable of higher speed if not for the train
                    control limitations.  No?
                    \_ They're not capable of higher speeds; they just think
                       they could run them closer together if they sprinkle
                       magic fairy dust on them.  -tom

2/10       Our president hung out with moot at TED. When an office hoser
           said 'pics or it didn't happen' she replied 'pictures
           aren't allowed at TED.'
        \_ Maybe those pics aren't for you to see.