On Aug 5, 12:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 06:09:52 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

On Aug 4, 2:09 pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:40 pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI)."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...0-Car+Naturali...

The average driver isn't crashing.

Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
years...

Exactly my point. The "average motorist isn't crashing".

"Not crashing" ? "driving".

Your logic isn't.

So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.

Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about. In your
case...

"Your logic isn't" isn't even a complete sentence. *In context you
could only have meant to imply my logic isn't crashing.

Wrong. Isn't refers back to "logic". *Even a moron can understand that.

What does it take to forward "Your logic isn't" as a complete
sentence?

Then one that shows that "not
fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)

I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.

The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent..

Always the other guy's fault, huh?

More of your famous "logic".

Nice dodge.

No, it was a response to a stupid strawman argument. *You're good at them.

T h a t i s n o t a s t r a w m a n. That's as slow as I can
type.

It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are
all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...

More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many",
or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother
come save me" rant. spit

Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit. *Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,

* * * * * * * * * *^^^^ *utter nonsense

"Nyuh uh" is the rebuttal of children and nitwits. Where's your
evidence?

twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...9550fc9e2fdf?h...

Do read what's written.

I did. That is a straw man. I slid the goal post to "not fully
engaged.

All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
monologue the next/last time they motored.

irrelevant bull**** snipped

That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.

OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
(add list from above) while driving.

I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
yesterday.

I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what?

So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

You're an idiot. You were trying to shift the argument. *That *is* a strawman
in itself.

No, a straw man is when I try to misrepresent -your- argument. "Not
fully engaged in the driving task" is the -new- argument -I- forwarded
that merely expands the sources of distraction/s. Attacking it as a
straw man of your argument is obviously false.

Driving doesn't,
indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.

How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
destination... ?

You really are an idiot. *If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.

That's merely repeating your assertion. The question is "how".

This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
them all to screeching halts.

More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.

There are no straw men in that paragraph. *A straw man is an
fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
position.

You have no brain. *The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
paragraph. *It is a total strawman.

No, you don't know what straw man means, even after I told you. Not
only do you seem stupid but incapable of learning.

I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
task".

So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.

I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.

No, moron, you're the illiterate one.

Obviously...

If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.

It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent. *If it were,
there would be *far* more accidents.

Non sequitur. Not crashing is the least standard of competence.

If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such
a simple thing as signal...? Too hard...?
-----

- gpsman