The C-Box Solution:
Managing Traffic, Reducing Accidents, Solving Congestion, Making Roads Safer, Detecting Criminals

A coordinated approach to roads today

David Noel
Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research
PO Box 27, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia.

What is a C-Box?
This article describes a system for traffic management and accident reduction. The most visible part of this is a device, called a "C-Box", fitted to each vehicle using the system. The device looks rather like the conventional GPS (Geographical Positioning System) screens already widely in use for guiding drivers to their destinations.

Conventional GPS screens are essentially already pre-loaded with information on the local road systems where they operate, this data does not change from day to day. The GPS is, however, also in wireless contact with a network of satellites spinning round fairly close to the Earth, and it uses timing signals from these satellites to determine its exact location on the Earth's surface. That is, it puts together its knowledge of its current position and its store of data on the local road system to give you instructions on how to get to another position, your destination.

If the local highway authorities make a change, say they block off a road, or put in a new link road, your GPS will not know about this, and its instructions may make you end up in a dead end, or miss out on a new short cut.

The C-Box has the same capabilities as your GPS, and also a lot more. Unlike your GPS, which is a stand-alone system, your C-Box is the entry gate to a state-wide System, where all vehicles with C-Boxes are in constant contact with each other, and with government-run road, geographic, legal, and user databases. So if you were travelling to a regional town where the authorities opened a new road link yesterday, your C-Box would know this, and maybe find it useful in getting you to your target destination.

But the main aims of the whole C-Box System are to reduce traffic congestion and road accidents, although there are many extra benefits. How this can be done is explained in what follows.

About systems
Our modern civilizations are critically dependent on our roads and on the vehicles which travel on them. Road and traffic systems, like all systems, have a number of parts. The good functioning of a system is crucially dependent on how well or badly its parts are interconnected, how well the different parts have been designed or have evolved, and how good is the program that runs the various interactions needed.

Here we look at road and traffic systems and their makeup, and describe the design of the new approach, called the C-Box System. Almost everything in C-Box is made up of familiar existing equipment and techniques. What makes it new is the way the parts are put together.

Parts of the C-Box System
The three main parts of the C-Box System are its Hardware, its Software, and its Data. Not shown in the diagram below, but absolutely vital for success, are all the links and connections between these parts -- we'll come to those later.

The three parts of the C-Box system

The three parts of the C-Box system.

The diagram shows the three segments of the System - Hardware, Software, and Data. The Hardware segment is the bit the user sees -- here it is decorated with face parts (an eye, a nose, and a mouth), to represent the C-Box's input and output channels (its cameras, its mobile-phone radio receivers and transmitters, its loudspeakers, its display screen).

Hardware -- like a Smart Phone/ GPS system
The most obvious part of the hardware is the C-Box itself -- a unit mounted in each motor vehicle using the system. This would look much like a GPS vehicle-location device or a fully-optioned smart phone, mounted on each vehicle dashboard and visible high on one side of or above the steering wheel.

What the C-Box might look like. From [1].

As in a smartphone, the C-Box would have suitable circuits to connect to a mobile phone network, and would have the usual GPS (Geographical Positioning System) tracking capability, able to locate the vehicle's whereabouts. In addition the C-Box would have a card reader, like those in EFTPOS terminals in stores everywhere -- probably as a slot in one side of the panel.

The card reader slot would take the driver's smart-card licence. A few years back, such licences were an innovation, but they are now in use in many parts of the world. The example shown is from Queensland, Australia.

A smart-card driver licence. From [2].

The only physical link between the C-Box and the vehicle (apart from its power supply) would be a line to the vehicle's immobilizer unit. Through this, the C-Box could turn off the vehicle's ignition, if this ultimately became necessary.

Outside of vehicles using the system, the major hardware items would be mobile-phone enhancement units progressively installed in traffic lights. This completes the hardware setup.

C-Box hardware segment.

If the C-Box was a human being, its hardware sensors would be the equivalent of eyes and ears, and its radio links would be like the nerves linking the sensors to the brain.

As in modern smartphones, the C-Box would have two cameras, one pointing forward, towards where the vehicle was heading, and one pointing back, towards the driver. These cameras nowadays have quite high resolutions, and can also record video.

Smartphone cameras. From [3].

Software segment -- the brain of the C-Box
Within the C-Box would be one or more microprocessors, as in an i-Phone or other smartphone. These would run under an operating system, COS, quite possibly adapted from Apple's IOS smartphone system, or Google's Android system.

C-Box software segment.

Once again, the microprocessors in modern smartphones are very powerful, matching those in stand-alone computer systems. The Samsung Galaxy phone may contain as many as 8 microprocessors (cores), running at high speeds.

Smartphone processors. From [3].

The Data Segment - what's in memory?
Of course, these processors function with the aid of quite extensive solid-state memory of one sort or another. In the C-Box's memory would be its currently-loaded GPS data, current snapshots of vehicle and driver data, and a selection of road-rules information.

The current GPS data would alter with the position of the vehicle. That is, at any moment the C-Box would hold rich GPS and road information for its immediate vicinity, more sparse GPS information on medium-distant places, and skeleton information on the whole state system.

As long as the vehicle was in contact with the greater C-Box Network, detailed local GPS data would be updated for the new areas being reached, displacing data for the areas being left behind. This is in contrast with today's typical GPS devices, where separate new uploads of data are needed for new driving areas, or as the data held becomes outdated with road changes. Any C-Box in contact with its Network would have the very latest data, reflecting changes notified to the Network as recently as in the previous few seconds.

If the C-Box was out of contact with its Network (which should be a rare occurrence, particularly if the Network used a full range of frequencies and protocols, including satellite phone links), the C-Box would operate with its last-known data set. This data set would be updated when the C-Box was again in range of its Network.

In normal operation, once per minute the C-Box would send a brief location/driver snapshot to the Driver and Vehicle Logging unit (ORDA, the Office of Road Data Analysis) elsewhere in the Network. When the vehicle was brought to a halt and its ignition turned off, it might also send fuller details of the last 30-seconds worth of data (closing snapshot) to ORDA.

The C-Box data segment.

Communications -- linking the segments
We've now dealt with all three parts of the C-Box system. If you look at them, you'll notice that almost all of the individual components are already present in many of the vehicles and road systems of today.

So what's different about the new system we're looking at here? Firstly, there are all the linkages, the communication modules, joining together the different components, and allowing them to interact with each other. This 'wakes up' the System, making it more than just the sum of its parts. The communications linkages form more 'intelligent' C-Box entities, each of which functions within a state-wide Network.

All the active C-Boxes in the state system are linked together via the commercial mobile-phone networks. That is, the government hires use of the local cell-phone networks, essentially as an ordinary big corporate user. The size of this usage would be such that C-Box processing would be expected to need some special facilities, just as the Australian Emergency Services number 000 needs special facilities.

For the moment, it is enough to remember that all active C-Boxes installed in local vehicles, and all local traffic lights updated with a mobile-phone connection, can be in continuous contact with each other and with the government's Data Segment which holds the road, geographic, legal, and user databases needed to run the system efficiently.

Motivation -- what drives the system
The second thing needed to 'awaken' the system, to bring it closer to full intelligence, is the use of carefully chosen system considerations -- these are like motivations, maybe even philosophical aims. These motivations may be partly "set up in silicon" in the C-Box's operating system, its COS, but have manifestations too outside the actual hardware, in such things as enabling legislation.

This should become clearer with an actual example. Each morning, John Driver has his breakfast, and goes out to his car in the driveway. After opening the door, he puts his smart-card driving licence into the slot in his car's C-Box (and the licence stays there while he is driving the car).

The C-Box already knows the car's details (manual or automatic, engine capacity, and so on), and checks the inserted licence against these details to verify that John is licensed to drive that particular vehicle. If so, it allows the car's ignition to be activated (like switching off the immobilizer).

Immediately we can see that this simple procedure makes car stealing a much more difficult proposition compared to the present. To drive the vehicle, the would-be thief must be able to insert a licence valid for that class of vehicle.

If the thief inserts his own licence, he can immediately be identified as the driver, all the time that he is driving, and usually wherever he is in the state Network. If not, he must steal or borrow somebody else's licence, already an offence under driving laws. If John owns a particularly valuable car, he might store a special procedure in the C-Box which needs a password, or even checks the driver's driving pattern against a recorded standard.

Monitoring speed limits
At the heart of the C-Box system is its ability to monitor and control the speeds at which vehicles may be driven, and to do this without any mechanical connection to the vehicles, and voluntarily, at the implementation of the vehicle owner.

It's important to realize that the C-Box knows the speed at which a vehicle is being driven, without any connection to its speedometer. GPS is accurate to about 1 metre. If a vehicle is travelling at 60 km/hr, it covers about 16.7 metres in one second. By comparing the vehicle's positions at the beginning and end of one second, the C-Box knows it is travelling at around 60 km/hr.

So the C-Box knows how fast a vehicle is travelling, and from its local GPS road data, it knows what the road's speed limit is. The C-Box therefore can monitor whether the vehicle is speeding, and if it is, it can tell the driver so.

This concept is worth dwelling on, as it is at the heart of the C-Box philosophy, which we'll look more closely at later. How does it operate?

Proposed UK speed limit signs. From [4].

The C-Box acts like a monitor or nagger, telling the driver if they are exceeding the limit. At just above the limit, there might be a minor nudge, such as a regular low click. As the driver got higher above the limit, the noise might change to higher in pitch and frequency, becoming more annoying.

At some higher figure above the limit, say 10 km/hr over, the nagging would get worse -- a voice might say 'Slow down, driver, you are well above the limit', and might repeat this until the speed of the vehicle was reduced.

When the driver slowed down below the limit, the C-Box would stop nagging. There would be no immediate penalty or disadvantage as long as the driver complied. No fine would be incurred (in fact the C-Box Enabling Legislation would not allow speeding fines to follow from C-Box operation).

Suppose the driver ignored the C-Box voice, and continued to drive well above the limit -- what then? After a warning, the C-Box would tell the driver to pull over to the side of the road and switch off -- they would be in the 'sin bin', and would have to remain stationary for a penalty time (maybe 1-5 minutes, depending on the transgression), before the C-Box would allow the vehicle to be started again.

Once again, no fine would be incurred, but the delay would annoy most drivers intensely, and they would soon learn the lesson. The experience of having to pull over and wait would be humiliating, especially if they had a passenger with them.

Savings and losses with C-Box
Cynics, or realists, would immediately point out that C-Box operation would lose the government a large amount in speeding fines. There are various factors here.

First, the government has the moral question, is its aim to cut out speeding, even if it loses fine revenue? This might be a hard decision for it to face.

Balancing the state budget. From [10].

The second factor, which would soothe government concerns, is that C-Box operation would provide other, higher, sources of revenue, which should more than replace fine revenue. In fact, C-Box would provide the government with many savings, first at a a useful level, later on some huge amounts. We'll look more closely at these things later.

Knowing how fast you're travelling
There is also an important aspect of speeding which is often ignored. Very often, a driver under current conditions does not realize that they are speeding. I have been fined twice for speeding over the last 20 years, and in each case I did not realize that I was breaking the speed limit (in one case, I was on a good dual-carriageway in the metro area, without buildings on either side, which I mistakenly assumed would have a 70 km/hr limit; in the other, I was on the outskirts of a country town, where I had not thought a 50 km/hr limit would apply).

Applicable speed limits are often not obvious. Move onto a main road from a 50 km/hr side road, and you might need to travel a kilometre or more before you meet a speed limit sign. School-area speed restrictions are particularly hard to respond to, since they vary with the time of day, and depend on whether it is a 'school-day' or not.

Solar-powered school zone speed limit sign, New South Wales. From [5].

So for many drivers, it would be a relief to have a C-Box active, alerting them to the current limit, with the assurance that if they listened to the Box, they would not be fined (of course, speed traps set up independently as now, could still catch them).

What if the driver continues to drive after being told to pull over?
The ultimate sanction is for the C-Box to warn the driver, and after a short period, to cut the ignition. What happens then depends on the circumstances.

Suppose the driver considered themselves to be in an emergency situation, say they were rushing an injured person to hospital, or escaping a bush fire? In this case, they should have invoked emergency procedures, by putting the vehicle to a halt, and opening the Emergency section on the screen.

If the vehicle was in contact with the Network, pressing 'Emergency' would bring up a real person, just as with dialling 000 on the normal telephone network. With a valid emergency, the Emergency Operator could release some of the C-Box restrictions on the vehicle, and monitor (or even assist) the subsequent progress of the vehicle to its destination -- while recording the vision from the two cameras.

If the driver could not justify their behaviour, their driver licence would be marked with their misdemeanor, and they might have to report at a traffic office or pay a penalty before they could drive again.

Effects on traffic courts and fines
As the C-Box System was brought in, the need to have traffic courts, and procedures to recover fines and monitor driver demerit points, would diminish. This should save big amounts of public funds, achieving closer observance of speed limits without a complex detect-and-punish apparatus.

Traffic Court, Philadelphia. From [6].

Introduction of the new system would, however, be gradual, and to a large extent, voluntary. This again is a fundamental feature of the C-Box Solution.

Phasing-in the C-Box system
To implement the C-Box Solution, the government needs to do various things:

About Government Action
1. Enabling Legislation. Some enabling legislation would be needed. This would establish the legal background for the system. An important part of this would be the proviso that information obtained from the system would not be admissible in court actions for speeding, parking, and minor traffic infractions.
2. C-Box device sourcing. The government should, using an expert technical advisory group, establish technical requirements for C-Box units. These would include all functionality features, including the ability to update the operating system and road and driver data in real-time. The government would not manufacture such units, these would be made and sold by interested computer, smartphone, or GPS tracking companies.
3. Driver Licences. The government would routinely issue new and renewed driver licences in smart-card form, and provide for drivers to change old-style licences for new on request.
4. External-Device Electronics. Traffic light electronics (and those in other traffic devices such as level crossings) would be progressively enhanced to use Network data as available.
5. Road Data Stores. The Driver and Vehicle Logging Units (ORDA) and state and local-authority roadwork authorities would be upgraded so that events such as road closures or restrictions, later to include sites of crashes affecting traffic flow, would be available for real-time updating of the Network. These updates would include all data which previously might have needed a memory update to the GPS device.

Installation of C-Boxes to be essentially voluntary
As with other new government requirements (say, introduction of seat-belts or immobilizers), installation of C-Boxes in existing vehicles would be essentially voluntary. Incentives to install are built into the system design, such as the ability to avoid speeding fines and the availability of GPS tracking facilities. Many other motivating developments would follow.

In addition, there should be a vehicle weighting factor built into traffic light electronics. Under this, traffic lights would count C-Box equipped (C+) vehicles using a multiplying factor, perhaps 3.2 in the early days (but reducing as the percentage of equipped vehicles rose). So if there were 3 non-C-Box-equipped (C-) vehicles stopped at lights in the E-W direction, and 1 C- vehicle and 2 C+ vehicles in the N-S direction, the electronics would count E-W as 3, and N-S as 7.4 vehicles, and give preference to N-S.

Traffic lights. From [7].

The effect of this would be that C+ vehicles would have quicker handling at traffic lights than C- vehicles, which would annoy the C- owners and encourage them to upgrade. This factor is justifiable anyway on system grounds, as the Network can handle C+ vehicles far more intelligently than C- ones.

Why should vehicle users bother with C-Box?
If participation in the System is voluntary, why should users bother to participate? The ability to be continually reminded of speeding, and some marginal advantage at traffic lights, is useful, but not a major persuader. As when seat-belts were introduced on a voluntary basis, some would use them, but many would not bother.

The big persuader for most users, and a revenue source for government which should far exceed its loss from speeding fines, is C-Apps, the availability of applications which would be downloaded by users onto their C-Boxes, from the Network App Store. As with Apple's App Store, users could download whatever apps they wished. But in contrast to the Apple revenue system, most C-Box Apps would yield revenue to the government.

"App Stores" hold downloadable computer applications. From [8].

C-Apps would fall into various classes. Free apps would be available to all C-Box users, for paid apps a credit or debit card would have been previously registered.

About C-Box Apps
1. Parking Apps. A popular class of C-Apps would make parking easier. Suppose you need to park near a particular building in the city centre, and that you are still a few kilometres out. You call up the previously-downloaded 'City Parking' app, currently set to find you a 3-hour space within 100 metres of your destination. This app selects and reserves the most suitable space available, and you start paying from then on. The government draws a small charge from this cost.
Or, you call up your 'Street Parking' app. This wouldn't have the reservation facility, but when you drew into a parking space, the app would tell you the conditions without getting out of the car to locate signs -- "Free parking here for 2 hours, but only 1 hour 40 minutes left before Clearway applies" -- "Pay meter with coins or credit card, park for up to 4 hours at $2.50 per hour".
2. Enhanced Journey Apps. Open your 'Fastest Time' app, this guides you along the calculated quickest route, taking account of system congestion, road works and notified accidents or other hold-ups, while staying within speed limits. Small government charge for time used.
Or, call up 'Fuel Minimum' app, this computes your route likely to consume minimum fuel, monitoring your speeds and other nearby C+ vehicles to get smooth flow through traffic lights at green -- a similar effect to 'linked lights' used in some places. Small charge for time used.
3. Safer Driving Apps. Free apps available to improve safety -- the 'Guardian Angel' app gives alerts when you drift out of your traffic lane, alerts when you start overtaking against an oncoming vehicle, alerts when you approach a level crossing with a train approaching, etc.
4. Improved Driving and Learning Apps. The 'Advanced Driver' app monitors your driving patterns, suggesting improvements for safety, efficiency, or calmer driving. Or, for a Learner or Provisional driver, the 'Licence Upgrader' app offers C+ learners a quicker route to get full qualification -- for accompanied driving, the qualified driver inserts and withdraws their full licence first. Required supervision logging done automatically. Small charge.

Built-in driving school. From [9].

5. Non-Traffic Apps. Apps not involved with traffic management, say ones which played music, could also be made available on the C-Box App Store, as long as they were not liable to cause distraction. The App Store would not allow apps where the user needed to concentrate on the screen (unless the vehicle was stationary).

Crime fighting using ORDA data
Data collected by ORDA, the Office of Road Data Analysis, would be a very valuable feature of the C-Box System, and at the same time, one of its most sensitive areas.

The detection or prevention of non-traffic crimes from the once-a-minute snapshots recorded in ORDA would be a society-changing advance. Almost all physical crimes, such as hold-ups, burglaries, party riots, car chases, etc, involve people who have travelled to commit those crimes.

The C-Box Enabling Legislation would specifically note that ORDA data could not be used to prosecute for speeding offences and other traffic infractions, such as overstaying parking. It should also place tight limits on who could access most data, and how they could do it.

In general, ORDA data relating to individuals should only be made available to the individuals themselves, on application, or to the police, under strict rules -- methods are available to prevent police misuse of this data.

Suppose that a bank hold-up had occurred, with the criminals using a stolen vehicle, later dumped at a place distant from the crime scene. Police could trace what C+ vehicles had been left at the car-stealing site before the theft, and what vehicles had been driven off at the time and place where the vehicle had been dumped. If the hold-up car was itself a C+ vehicle, it could be halted immediately as soon as it was seen in action.

Or, suppose a body had been found dumped in a distant bush site. ORDA records could be used to trace which vehicles had stopped close to the dump site at the likely time of dumping, and who had been driving them.

Reducing congestion with an 'intelligent' traffic-light network
Handling of existing traffic lights in an interlinked system can have a dramatic effect on reducing congestion. Such a system introduced on the streets of Pittsburgh, USA, improved traffic flow by 40% and cut car stops by 30% [11].

This improvement was from traffic-light upgrading alone. When combined with C-Box monitoring of actual vehicles on the streets, plus the ability to reroute C+ vehicles on quicker routes, much greater reduction in congestion can be expected. This dramatic improvement would apply with streets and roads as they are today.

German plan to eliminate congestion and accidents on the roads. From [12].

The Big Saving for government
It's been suggested that the C-Box Solution presents savings in the state budgets from reducing traffic courts, and a good source of revenue from apps downloadable from the C-Box Network.

But the really attractive feature for government treasurers is the huge savings in road construction. New highways may cost the state millions, even billions, of dollars. If better traffic flows can be achieved with better use of the same road network, it must reduce the need for building new roads. And where new roads will still be needed, their cost and construction time may be reduced by running proposed projects through a powerful simulator to discover the most efficient routes.

In doing this, there is a general system principle which can apply.

A good software solution will always beat a good hardware solution. (Quotation CBQ2 -- Computer industry saying).

A nice illustration of this principle can be found from the distant past, from the Age of the Dinosaurs.

. .

Different approaches to being a dinosaur. From [13, 14].

If you need to exist in a landscape occupied by savage, heavily-toothed creatures like the Tyrannosaurus (left), one approach is to develop armour and spikes like a Euoplocephalus (right), making you hard to bite and swallow.

This is the 'hardware' approach to survival. The 'software' approach is learning how to dodge or hide or run away more quickly, using your brain to survive. The survivors of the Dinosaur Age, including us, have made good use of this technique.

The great advantage of the 'software' approach is its adaptability, its ability to improve very rapidly -- like loading a new operating system. Euoplocephalus could have evolved even more massive armour to cope with fiercer versions of Tyrannosaurus, but this might take thousands or millions of years. A new hiding or dodging technique might be found in a day.

So the C-Box approach to traffic management is not only more efficient and cheaper than current methods, it is also far better at adapting to changes.

Simulating the traffic system using ORDA data
Once a body of ORDA data had been accumulated, it would be possible to see how changes, perhaps small, to existing roads could improve flows. Eventually a theoretical simulation of a whole area could be set up in a computer, and the effect of changes determined without any actual road work. Such things as the effects of changing speed limits over particular stretches of roads could be determined 'in the lab'.

While such a simulation has complexities, and would take time to install, the simulation would be a far simpler exercise than existing simulations, such as are used in weather prediction (or even to simulate the discharge of nuclear bombs -- where nowadays, no actual tests are needed).

Privacy and the C-Box System
People always have a concern for what they view as an invasion of privacy. And certainly the C-Box system could be feared for what it could expose about individuals. Some of these things might be illegal, others merely socially embarrassing.

"Big Brother is Watching You". From [15].

There are various counter-factors here. First, the enabling legislation for C-Box would be set up so that information obtained from the system would not be admissible in court actions for speeding, parking, and minor traffic infractions.

An illustration of this can be found concerning stopping at 'Stop' signs. Slowing down, but not actually stopping, at 'Stop' signs is actually very common, and generally not regarded as serious.

C-Box could certainly detect people not actually stopping at 'Stop' signs for the specified 3 seconds (or whatever the local ordinances specified), and people guilty of this may occasionally be noticed by police and fined for the offence. C-Box detection alone could not lead to fining, and most jurisdictions would not regard this as too serious.

But suppose the powers-that-be decided that more emphasis should be placed on monitoring this matter, as a matter of improved driving habits. Local C-Boxes could be programmed to at least nag errant drivers -- "That's the 25th time in the last year that you haven't observed the 'Stop' sign properly", or "We could ask the police to watch for you at that local 'Stop' sign, you know".

People in the habit of doing illegal things unconnected with the traffic system might well resent the fact that they could be picked up from ORDA data, but this is no justification for not doing so.

Is C-Box detection any harsher than existing measures?
It is a fact of life in modern society that we are all observed and recorded as we go about our affairs to a much greater extent than in earlier times. Local authorities have cameras in city streets everywhere, venues such as night clubs may be required to have security cameras.

The mobile phones carried by most of the population make it possible to trace where users were or are, at all times. Number-plate recognition software is now efficient enough for police to be able to automatically record all vehicles passing along a particular street. So the C-Box system is not, in fact, any greater an invasion of privacy than currently exists.

Take-up of C-Box
Introduction of C-Box should be as for all earlier changes to vehicle improvements, such as introduction of seat belts, or fitting of immobilizers. That is, C-Boxes could be voluntarily fitted in existing vehicles, but required in newly-registered vehicles, and in ones changing ownership.

 Reasons have already been laid out above as to why vehicle owners would want to retrofit their existing vehicles to the new standard. In particular, owners of business and government vehicles would support retrofitting, because these owners would wish to know how their vehicles were being used.

 Nevertheless, an older vehicle being used almost exclusively in a country area, away from city traffic, would have less need for inclusion in the system, and might remain outside it until the end of the vehicle's life.

To make a comment on this article, please click HERE.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


(The name C-Box is derived from an earlier version of the scheme, "CIRTES: A Complete Intelligent Road Traffic Executive Scheme for Western Australia", which is at: . )

[1]. GPS touchscreen. .
[2]. Smart-Card Driver Licence. .
[3]. Samsung Galaxy S4 vs. iPhone 5. .
[4]. UK metric speed limit signs. .
[5]. Solar-powered school zone speed limit sign, New South Wales. .
[6]. Traffic Court, Philadelphia. .
[7]. Arizona Traffic School. .
[8]. Use of term "appstore" is not deceiving, rules US court. .
[9]. Michigan's Assistive Technology Program. .
[10]. The 10 Lawmakers to Negotiate the State's Budget. .
[11]. Kent Acott. Smarter Traffic Lights That Reduce Congestion. The West Australian / 2013 Mar 5, p.10.
[12]. 52 million cars -- and zero congestion. .
[13]. Tyrannosaurus rex. .
[14]. Euoplocephalus. .
[15]. Our Privacy Policy .

Go to the Social Engineering Home Page

Version 1.0 commenced 2013 Mar 10, added to Apr 13-25.
V. 1.2, enhancements May 1-5. V. 1.4, up on Web 2013 May 10.
V. 1.5, May 13. V. 1.6, Jun 26. V. 1.61 2014 Feb 6.