On Aug 3, 12:17*pm, wrote:
On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Gil wrote:
That's 'big' of you. Just remember that probably some day you will be
over sixty and then we'll see how you feel about your statement then.
There are good and bad drivers in every age classification.

Of course there are always SOME good drivers in every age group.

When does it make sense to stop letting ALL the drivers in a particular age group continue to drive, simply because SOME of them are still good drivers?

Apparently never, because their feewings will be hurt. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.

Just an aside, caring about someone else's feelings, or someone else's safety, is a liberal trait. Good conservatives always look out for #1.

Personally, I would hope that someone takes my keys away if I become a menace. I'll probably get very angry when it happens. I'm sure I won't like it, but I won't be in a position to make an objective decision about my ability to drive. I'll still fancy myself to be Dale Freaking Earnhardt Jr, even if I'm 85, blind in one eye, with no feeling in my right leg.

If you are concerned with shutting down the ones casusing most of the
accidents. don't let anyone undeer 21 drive.

As for not begin able to tell Mr. Magoo to stop driving...it is done
everyday. Doctors report it, LE offerecers request re-eval, etc. I
got my own wife's licence pulled.

Granted that not enough relatives have the 'nads to take the keys away
from an elder.

Harry K

On Aug 3, 12:59*pm, Gil wrote:
On 03/08/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Gil wrote:
That's 'big' of you. Just remember that probably some day you will be
over sixty and then we'll see how you feel about your statement then.
There are good and bad drivers in every age classification.

Of course there are always SOME good drivers in every age group.

When does it make sense to stop letting ALL the drivers in a particular age group continue to drive, simply because SOME of them are still good drivers?

Apparently never, because their feewings will be hurt. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.

That's a stupid attitude. Loss of driving privileges should be based on
displayed performance, not on some perceived deficiency because someone
reaches a certain age. A hell of a lot twenty-year old drivers shouldn't
be on the road. Based on your comments I doubt you would recognize a
sixty-year old if you saw one. Probably at your age everyone over forty
looks 'old'.

Just an aside, caring about someone else's feelings, or someone else's safety, is a liberal trait. Good conservatives always look out for #1.

Personally, I would hope that someone takes my keys away if I become a menace.

I agree and it should be regardless of age. If you think you can drive
safely like Dale Earnhart used to on the track just because you're
young, then you are delusional.

I'll probably get very angry when it happens. I'm sure I won't like it,
but I won't be in a position to make an objective decision about my
ability to drive. I'll still fancy myself to be Dale Freaking Earnhardt
Jr, even if I'm 85, blind in one eye, with no feeling in my right leg.

I'll lay odds that dennisga... is one of the cars in the ques on the
interstate running y75 with 1 sec or less separation.

Harry K

On Aug 3, 12:26*pm, wrote:
On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^

If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.

LOL. Good point!!!

Harry K

On 8/3/2012 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^

If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.


Did you see the last Star Trek movie. When Kirk was a kid, he took his
stepfather's vintage Corvette for a joy ride. What would cops do about
pre-inhibited vehicles? ^_^

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote in message m...

I also check cross-street traffic twice, rather than
relying on the other driver to stop, and so on.


Smart strategy considering most drivers are sexting and texting and facebooking etc etc. ;-)

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 07:10:48 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...

I'd go almost two weeks but now the "other side" is 18 miles and I commute to
AL on the weekends. At least I only have a couple of more months of that.

On 08/03/2012 05:13 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Didn't Onstar do that already?

I have also heard of "buy here; pay here" places doing that, also. Using
remote boxes, and computer interface. I don't have the story, but I remember
hearing of a car place, an employee was fired, but they didn't delete his
log and pass for their computer. He went home, and disabled 100 plus cars,
from his home computer.

And such a car place should be required to REMOVE the device once the
car is paid for.

Christopher A. Young

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Marge, have you ever actually sat down and read this thing?
Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." [Priest on
"The Simpsonb

On 08/04/2012 07:10 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...



I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier
highest of($4.00 / gal).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Marge, have you ever actually sat down and read this thing?
Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." [Priest on
"The Simpson's"]

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...

Your logic isn't.

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

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".
-----

- gpsman

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".

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...

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".

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

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

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.

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.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:59:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 08/04/2012 07:10 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...



I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier
highest of($4.00 / gal).

I had a 65$ "fillup" recently. I had my 2-1/2 gallon mower can with me, but
still... Gas here has jumped $.50 in the last month ($.25 in the last week).

On Aug 4, 5:10*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). *;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...

Heh. I got a 5 gal can of gas and tried to fill the small tank on my
PU. Nope, took the entire $50 and gauge only showed 7/8th.

Harry K

On Aug 3, 9:11*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 8/3/2012 2:26 PM, wrote:

On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^

If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.

Did you see the last Star Trek movie. When Kirk was a kid, he took his
stepfather's vintage Corvette for a joy ride. What would cops do about
pre-inhibited vehicles? ^_^

TDD

They'll be banned from re-registering or required to get the new
technology installed
of course.

Harry K

On Aug 4, 10:05*am, 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...

Your logic isn't.

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

In the trunks of the car ahead of them. Happened here yesterday, two
motorcycles impacted a car on highway that slowed down for unknown
reasons. Bikers "tried to evade"...gee, ya think a few seconds of
spacing would have allowed that?


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".

Las time I rode with my wife she scared the hell out of me. Got her
lic pulled a couple weeks later. Couldn't figure out why she kept
varying speed, I watched. Following too close and eyes locked on the
bumper ahead.

Harry K

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...


That statement could be misleading:

Assume 1000 drivers.

In ten years (3650 days), that's 1000 crashes.

It could be that the SAME driver is having a crash ever 3.5 days, while the
other 999 drivers are enjoying a crash-free life style.

On Aug 4, 2:09Â*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. Â*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. Â*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.

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.

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

More of your famous "logic". Â*Try "most". Â*If the moron had said "too many",
or even "many", I'd agree. Â*As it was written it's just another "big brother
come save me" rant. Â*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,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...n&dmode=source

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. Â*So what?

So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

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

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

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. Â*Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Â*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.

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.

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.
-----

- gpsman

On Aug 5, 9:09Â*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:09Â*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. Â*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. Â*In your
case...

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

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.

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

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

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

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...


It's hard for me to understand how as written it's another "big
brother
come save me rant". But if instead of "most" the poster had said
"too many", then it drastically changes it into something else.

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.
I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a
regular basis. And those are just the ones I see. It also gets down
at some point to your definition of distracted.

Here's some data from an actual poll:


"Whether it's talking on cellphones, fiddling with food and drink or
doing some last-minute grooming, a large majority of adult drivers in
the United States admit to being dangerously distracted while behind
the wheel, a new poll shows.

Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY
Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking
on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.
EnlargeClose
Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY
Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking
on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.

Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll,
most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86
percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting
their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup
(14 percent)."


Now that is some actual data. So, whether you take the poster's
exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't
think materially changes a thing.

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.

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.


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
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...n&dmode=source


Do read what's written.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.

I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a
regular basis. *And those are just the ones I see. *It also gets down
at some point to your definition of distracted.

"Not fully engaged in the driving task".

The subject of driver distraction is almost entirely misunderstood
because it is invariably limited to intentional distractions when
simply being distracted by one's internal monologue is also a major
factor in driver inattention.

Motorists learn themselves the wrong things. Operating a motor
vehicle w/o full attention rarely results in a crash. The obviously
wrong conclusion is it doesn't take full attention. The problem is,
when the moment arrives that it does too many motorists are way
behind; the proverbial "100 kt. pilots in 200 kt. airplanes".

I wonder how the average motorist would feel if their pilot ignored
FAA rules and operated the aircraft in accordance with what they think
their experience learned them were their limits...

Here's some data from an actual poll:

Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll,
most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86
percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting
their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup
(14 percent)."

Now that is some actual data.

It's data, but mostly related to what people are willing to admit.
Only 86% were willing to admit they ate/drank and I think we can
reasonably assume the real number would be much closer to 100%.

So, whether you take the poster's
exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't
think materially changes a thing.

Driving is widely considered "safe". The evidence is overwhelming and
includes pedestrians waiting to cross the street with their toes (and/
or occupied stroller) sticking out over the curb.

I don't want to count the number of people I know whose lives were
ended, shortened or made miserable and/or have been rendered unable to
work by easily predictable and preventable vehicle crashes, but it's a
dozen, at least, not including myself.
-----

- gpsman

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

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

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?

Clearly, you need an English lesson. It *is* a complete sentence, with "logic"
implied. Rather like "Eat ****!"; "you" is implied.

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.

You're an idiot. It was an argument set up for the sole purpose of knocking
down; a strawman.

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?

*YOU* made the absurd claim, moron. It's up to *you* to provide the evidence.
That's just the way it works.

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.

You clearly didn't understand it. Try starting again at first grade. This
time maybe in a private school.

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.

No, dufus. A strawman is an argument set up for the specific purpose of
knocking down. You shifted the goal posts, precisely for that purpose.

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".

You obviously can't read. No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. It's physically impossible.

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.

Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. It doesn't
address the point, however. It is specifically set up to win an argument,
even if it isn't the same argument.

Are you really another of Dumb****'s nyms? You're about that smart.

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...

Well, we agree.

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.

It's the only one that matters.

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

Cite!

On Aug 5, 12:38*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:

On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.


Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

So, link please?

On 08/05/2012 02:35 PM, wrote:



Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

So, link please?



No link required...
Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:24:51 -0400, homme de la maison
wrote:

On 08/05/2012 02:35 PM, wrote:



Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

So, link please?



No link required...
Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

You really are a dumb****, Dumb****.

And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers test.

My my observation, the slight decline in reflexes in the 60s is more
than compensated for by the "experience" factor. I have flown with a
pilot who was in his 70s.

Most folks I know are still quite good drivers up to at least 75.

If you want to "generalize," I would set the "test often" age to 75.
Most would still qualify, IMO.

On Aug 5, 2:11*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:23*pm, "

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".

You obviously can't read. *No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. *It's physically impossible.

Your cite seems to be missing...

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.

Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. *It doesn't
address the point, however. *It is specifically set up to win an argument,
even if it isn't the same argument.

Are you really another of Dumb****'s nyms? *You're about that smart.

Said the guy who wouldn't know a straw man if hit over the head with
it.

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.

It's the only one that matters.

There's a small matter of causing others to crash.

If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

a simple thing as signal...? *Too hard...?

Cite!

Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet
Driving Expert, August 2012.
-----

- gpsman

On Aug 5, 2:35*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:38*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. *What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?

You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
6" bandwagon...?

Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. *But that isn't what that statement says. *It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. *I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period.

That's kind.

*And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
distractions.

So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?
-----

- gpsman

On 2012-08-05, homme de la maison wrote:

No link required...
Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

LOL!....

Too true. And this long before cellphones and their ilk. I've seen
ppl reading books while driving. Not like the guy reading the morning
paper, with the newspaper propped up on the stearing wheel where he
could maintain some semblance of line-of-sight with the road, but a
book lying open on the seat beside the reader, the reader having to
take his eyes off the road and look over and down. Scary stuff.

nb

--
"Do you recognize me? No!
....cuz I don't work here"
Support labelling GMO foods
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

On Aug 6, 8:33*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:35*pm, "
wrote:





On Aug 5, 12:38*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. *What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?

You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
6" bandwagon...?


No, in fact I clearly said I'll allow the distractions to go
beyond those specific 6. And I still say there is no evidence
that *most* drivers are driving distracted. A significant
number, yes. If it were *most* we'd be seeing accidents one
after the other.



Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. *But that isn't what that statement says. *It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. *I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period.

That's kind.


Then why did you just ask the question about limiting
distraction to just the six on the list?




*And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
distractions.

From the context of the discussion, it's clear we're talking
about distraction that is serious enough to have a significant
impairment in the driver's ability. All the things on that list
qualify. Now, if for purposes of digging yoursefl out of your
self-created hole, you want to try to expand your definition
of distracted to the driver thinking about what the weather may
be where they are going, or similar nonsense, then I call BS.





So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?
*-----

- gpsman- Hide quoted text -


Try it this way. YOU are making the claim. It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. That's the
way things work in my world. This has been studied quite a
bit and I have never seen a study that suggests what you
claim. So, link please?

On Aug 6, 8:15*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:11*pm, "
wrote:





On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:23*pm, "

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".

You obviously can't read. *No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. *It's physically impossible.

Your cite seems to be missing...



Funny that the guy who 10 posts later still has no reference
at all to support his claim, now demands a reference for this?
First, in the context of the discussion where you claimed most
drivers are driving distracted, the distractions listed were
serious ones:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Now if you want to shift the discussion not from those specific
ones or similar SERIOUS distractions, to ANY situation
where a driver is not 100% focused only on driving,
then KRW is right. No one could drive for say 5 miles,
giving 100% attention, unless perhaps it were some
experiment where they knew that was their specific task.
And even then, it likely wouldn't work, because, well they
would also be thinking about the experiment, what they
were told to do, etc.


Let's say I'm thinking about which route to take 10 miles ahead.
Ergo, I'm no longer focused 100% on the immediate task of driving.
Or say I'm wondering what the weather will be like where I'm
going. My attention is now split between that and driving and
no longer 100% focused on driving.

So, yeah, if in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole you
want to try to expand the definition of distracted to that
level, then I agree with KRW, nobody could drive for more
than extremely short periods with 100% concentration.
But then the claim taken in context was never about that,
It was about serious distractions while driving.

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

On Aug 5, 2:35*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:38*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. *What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?

You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
6" bandwagon...?

Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. *But that isn't what that statement says. *It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. *I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period.

That's kind.

*And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
distractions.

So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?

Idiot. You're making the outrageous claims. I'ts *your* task to back them
up.

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 05:15:07 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

On Aug 5, 2:11*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:23*pm, "

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".

You obviously can't read. *No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. *It's physically impossible.

Your cite seems to be missing...

You're an idiot. It's impossible for a human to concentrate on one thing for
even ten minutes. The brain doesn't function that way.

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.

Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. *It doesn't
address the point, however. *It is specifically set up to win an argument,
even if it isn't the same argument.

Are you really another of Dumb****'s nyms? *You're about that smart.

Said the guy who wouldn't know a straw man if hit over the head with
it.

Good Lord, you're an idiot.

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.

It's the only one that matters.

There's a small matter of causing others to crash.

Are you *really* that stupid? A crash is a crash. If the problem were as bad
as you say, there would be crashes everywhere.

If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

a simple thing as signal...? *Too hard...?

Cite!

Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet
Driving Expert, August 2012.

Consider yourself the stupidest person on the Usenet, August 2012. ...and
that's some honor.

On Aug 6, 9:30*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:33*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:35*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:38*pm, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:41*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:09*am, gpsman wrote:

Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point..

It isn't exaggeration.

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. *What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?

You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
6" bandwagon...?

No, in fact I clearly said I'll allow the distractions to go
beyond those specific 6. * And I still say there is no evidence
that *most* drivers are driving distracted.

There's no evidence they aren't.

A significant
number, yes. * If it were *most* we'd be seeing accidents one
after the other.

Single cause fallacy.

Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. *But that isn't what that statement says. *It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. *I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period.

That's kind.

Then why did you just ask the question about limiting
distraction to just the six on the list?

Clarification, because I had not gotten this far in your post.

*And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
distractions.

From the context of the discussion, it's clear we're talking
about distraction that is serious enough to have a significant
impairment in the driver's ability.

No. It's significant enough that they often fail to recognize
developing circumstances that lead to crashing.

All the things on that list
qualify. * Now, if for purposes of digging yoursefl out of your
self-created hole, you want to try to expand your definition
of distracted to the *driver thinking about what the weather may
be where they are going, or similar nonsense, then I call BS.

Fine. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to describe the methods you use to
take and maintain "conscious control of the attentional spotlight".

So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?

Try it this way. *YOU are making the claim. *It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. * That's the
way things work in my world.

This isn't your world. In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

This has been studied quite a
bit and I have never seen a study that suggests what you
claim.

I commend you for using the word "seen" rather than "read", but there
is nothing to suggest the vast majority of motorists are not
distracted.

So, link please?

All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.
-----

- gpsman

On Aug 5, 8:59*pm, John Gilmer wrote:
And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers test..

My my observation, the slight decline in reflexes in the 60s is more
than compensated for by the "experience" factor. *I have flown with a
pilot who was in his 70s.

Most folks I know are still quite good drivers up to at least 75.

If you want to "generalize," I would set the "test often" age to 75.
Most would still qualify, IMO.

Agree. I wonder how many licenses would be pulled if everyone found
"at fault" in accidents was given a mandatory retest.

Harry K

On Aug 6, 9:57*am, gpsman wrote:

So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?

Try it this way. *YOU are making the claim. *It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. * That's the
way things work in my world.

This isn't your world. *In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

Again, that is NOT how it works. YOU made the claim.
YOU provide the proof. It would be a very strange and impossible
world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
ridiculous claim made. Your obvious problem is that you've
dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.




All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.
*-----

- gpsman- Hide quoted text -


Let's look at the specific list again
of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
or applying makeup"

Those are serious distractons. All with the possible
exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
Now you want to make it
include a driver just thinking about anything at all
that is not their immeadiate driving task? Like what
time they may arrive where they are going?
How nuts is that? By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
100% of drivers are distracted.

I call BS on you.

On Aug 6, 10:25*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:57*am, gpsman wrote:

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?

Try it this way. *YOU are making the claim. *It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. * That's the
way things work in my world.

This isn't your world. *In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

Again, that is NOT how it works. *YOU made the claim.
YOU provide the proof. *It would be a very strange and impossible
world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
ridiculous claim made. * Your obvious problem is that you've
dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.

Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
evidence most motorists are not distracted.

To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling. Do you want to
argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that? Chances are
99.9% you don't signal yourself.

I cite their speeds. Nothing there to suggest they are paying
attention. Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
speed limits?

I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
light with no apparent intention of stopping.

I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.

I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane. Motorists,
as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
maintain their lanes. If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
lane yourself.

I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
the room the wrong side of the road provides.

I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.

I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
them are in place.

I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.

I can do this all day.

I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".

I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".

I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
-6M crashes per year.

What evidence have you got...?

All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.

Let's look at the specific list again
of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
*or applying makeup"

Those are serious distractons. *All with the possible
exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
Now you want to make it
include a driver just thinking about anything at all
that is not their immeadiate driving task?

What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?

Like what
time they may arrive where they are going?
How nuts is that? *By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
100% of drivers are distracted.

Exactly. Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
endeavor to focus on driving.

The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.

Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for ****, the
conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable. The
evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
is occurring before their eyes.

I call BS on you.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Cite something, if it's only anecdotal evidence...
-----

- gpsman

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:


The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.


You won't ever change it either. Many people talk on cells, hold
conversations with passengers, etc. They don't think anything of it,
and probably won't recognize their inattention to driving caused an
accident. Some people do multi-task better than others, but you
really can't take your eyes off the road.
I let a BIL drive my van on a trip back from a family event once, and
I sat on the bench seat behind him. He actually kept turning and
looking at me as we talked. At 75mph, and he followed too close.
Made him pull into a rest area so I could drive.
I do long trips with my wife, and we converse. But often I just say
"wait' and turn her off. It's situational.
She's drives pretty much the same way.
Diving is a bit of work for me, but I use methods to make it more
enjoyable. Mostly figuring traffic patterns to stay as far away from
other vehicles as possible.
It's kind of fun to know exactly what somebody will do before they
even do it. Can't count the times I've said, "He'll switch lanes,
then switch right back." Then he does it.
I'm sure my wife is bored with it, but she does like my driving style.

--
Vic

On Aug 6, 11:59*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 6, 10:25*am, "
wrote:





On Aug 6, 9:57*am, gpsman wrote:

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?

Try it this way. *YOU are making the claim. *It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. * That's the
way things work in my world.

This isn't your world. *In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

Again, that is NOT how it works. *YOU made the claim.
YOU provide the proof. *It would be a very strange and impossible
world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
ridiculous claim made. * Your obvious problem is that you've
dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.

Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
evidence most motorists are not distracted.


The best evidence is the low rate of accidents. If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.



To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling. *Do you want to
argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that? *Chances are
99.9% you don't signal yourself.

Strawman.

Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. But is it most people that I
encounter every day? No way. And of course it really
is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything
about whether they are distracted or not. I would think
that most people who don't signal do it because they
are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all
the time, not because they are distracted by texting,
etc.




I cite their speeds. *Nothing there to suggest they are paying
attention. *Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
speed limits?

Again strawman and you're wandering off here. Sure people speed
but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
because they are distracted. It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed. Can you find someone once in a
while that happens to go over the speed limit because they
went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt
realize it? Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.





I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
light with no apparent intention of stopping.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.





I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.



I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane. *Motorists,
as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
maintain their lanes. *If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
lane yourself.

Finally you have something that very likely is due to being
distracted. Now, I don't know where you live. But I live in NJ
where I think we have some of the worst drivers. Do I see
someone drifting into my lane? Sure, once in a while.
Maybe a couple times a month. Now if MOST drivers
on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see
it many times an hour.





I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
the room the wrong side of the road provides.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.



I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.

I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
them are in place.

I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.

I can do this all day.

What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other
most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.




I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".

I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".

I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
-6M crashes per year.

But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your
claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting,
putting on makeup, etc. It's like saying smoking in bed
is the leading cause of house fires and then saying
that means most people smoke in bed.





What evidence have you got...?

All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.

Let's look at the specific list again
of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
*or applying makeup"

Those are serious distractons. *All with the possible
exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
Now you want to make it
include a driver just thinking about anything at all
that is not their immeadiate driving task?

What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?

In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while
distracted it would have to include ordinary things like
thinking about what you have to do when you get where
you're going. Or what's for dinner tonight. And as
KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are
distracted.


Like what
time they may arrive where they are going?
How nuts is that? *By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
100% of drivers are distracted.

Exactly. *Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
endeavor to focus on driving.

You may believe that, but I disagree. And you're waffling
here by now including the modifier "not all the time".
If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time
or another while driving, I would agree with that.
But again, what you said was:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea. "






The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.

Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for ****, the
conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable.

Not that I even agree with that, but again that isn't even close
to what you first said.



*The
evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
is occurring before their eyes.

The relatively low number of accidents that happen
per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest
to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by
the likes of the serious distractions on your list.
If they were, accidents would be
happening at 100 times the rate they are.

Sure, once in a while someone is texting, putting
on makeup and winds up causing an accident.
But if that were most drivers cars would be
crashing on the roads everywhere.

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:15*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:11*pm, "
wrote:





On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:23*pm, "

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".

You obviously can't read. *No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. *It's physically impossible.

Your cite seems to be missing...



Funny that the guy who 10 posts later still has no reference
at all to support his claim, now demands a reference for this?

It's just his childish comeback because I demanded a citation for his absurd
claim.

First, in the context of the discussion where you claimed most
drivers are driving distracted, the distractions listed were
serious ones:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Now if you want to shift the discussion not from those specific
ones or similar SERIOUS distractions, to ANY situation
where a driver is not 100% focused only on driving,
then KRW is right. No one could drive for say 5 miles,
giving 100% attention, unless perhaps it were some
experiment where they knew that was their specific task.
And even then, it likely wouldn't work, because, well they
would also be thinking about the experiment, what they
were told to do, etc.

Synopsis: His argument was that *most* drivers are distracted. If
"distracted" includes only that list (even other *serious* distractions),
claiming that most drivers are distracted is silly. If "distracted" means
that one is not using 100% of his mental abilities on the task of driving,
then everyone is always distracted. Sure, that meets the "most" criteria but
is hardly a useful definition; no harm done. Using either definition, gps is
nuts.


Let's say I'm thinking about which route to take 10 miles ahead.
Ergo, I'm no longer focused 100% on the immediate task of driving.
Or say I'm wondering what the weather will be like where I'm
going. My attention is now split between that and driving and
no longer 100% focused on driving.

Right.

So, yeah, if in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole you
want to try to expand the definition of distracted to that
level, then I agree with KRW, nobody could drive for more
than extremely short periods with 100% concentration.
But then the claim taken in context was never about that,
It was about serious distractions while driving.

He's squirming from one definition to the other, with side trips down strawman
lane to try to win the point. The argument, either way, (narrow or
all-encompassing definition of "distracted") makes no sense.