On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

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.

Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
speed traps).

On Aug 6, 4:21*pm, "
wrote:
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.

"Low"... compared to what?

If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.

Non sequitur. Plenty of distracted driving occurs w/o crashing.

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.


Which of your arguments is the basis of that alleged straw man?

Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. *But is it most people that I
encounter every day? * No way.

Then you're not paying attention.

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.

Fine. Do you have any evidence of that?

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.

That's what you say.

It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed.

I'm pretty sure any cop can tell you that's the rarest reason cited by
motorists when they get pulled over... so how did you arrive at your
conclusion?

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.

If you're not observing speed limits there's nothing to suggest you
simply aren't paying attention.

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.

How the **** do you know?

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

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

Right. They're deliberately pinging off curbs.

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.

You're not paying sufficient attention.

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.

What is there to suggest that? If driving on the wrong side of the
road is not evidence of distraction, what is?

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.

Which of your arguments is the basis of those alleged straw men?

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.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying smoking in bed is the
leading cause of house fires, then attempting to conclude from that
that most people smoke.

What we have instead is motorists, all of which who motor.

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.

Yes. 100% of motorists are distracted much of the time. If you're
not 100% devoted to piloting your vehicle you're distracted by
definition: "1 a : diversion of the attention"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/distraction

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".

I didn't modify it you illiterate ****. Of course if one is
distracted all the time they're probably going to crash, and pretty
quick.

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. "

I did not write that.

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.

What I first said was:
"Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task
is
easily.... well, you can't ****ing miss it unless you have no idea of
what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
greater than very likely."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...n&dmode=source

*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.

That's not my list.

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.

Obviously not. Did you ever motor and talk on the phone? Let us
assume yes. Did you crash while doing so? Let us assume no.

People are very good at dividing their attention and not crashing.
What they aren't worth a **** at is dividing their attention and
"driving". The vast majority of the time **** poor driving doesn't
result in a crash.

All one needs to do to confirm the prevalence of driver distraction is
note their internal monologues the next time they get behind the
wheel.

I taught some of the stupidest mother****ers on the planet to drive a
truck and none of them exhibited any problem understanding that they'd
previously been driving distracted their entire lives.
-----

- gpsman

On Aug 6, 9:07*pm, gpsman wrote:

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.

"Low"... compared to what?

Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
see if 51%+ of all drivers
were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".






If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.

Non sequitur. *Plenty of distracted driving occurs w/o crashing.

Say that all you want, but I say if 51%+ of drivers out
there were "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
there would be a huge number of accidents and you'd
see them all over the place.





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.

Which of your arguments is the basis of that alleged straw man?

Say what?




Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. *But is it most people that I
encounter every day? * No way.

Then you're not paying attention.

Sure, it's my defect, not that you're making up crap.





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.

Fine. *Do you have any evidence of that?

Again, it's YOUR strawman. YOU made the claim.
It's up to YOU to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
I could claim I have a lemon tree with purple lemons.
Now, is it up to me to prove that I have it or everyone
else to try to prove it doesn't exist, which of course
is impossible?





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.

That's what you say.


I'm beginning to agree with KRW that there must be
something wrong with you. You're actually claiming that
the reason most people speed is because they are
distracted? Not that they know what the speed limit
is, but consciously go faster? Good grief. I can
take you down the Parkway here in NJ. Where the
speed limit is 55mph,, 90%+ of the cars are going
65+. All distracted? Of course not. They just know
that the cops give at least a 10mph leeway and
choose to go faster, with the flow of trafffic because
it's a reasonable, safe speed that feels comfortable.
I do it all the time myself and I'm not texting or updating
facebook. Do you really drive much?




It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed.

I'm pretty sure any cop can tell you that's the rarest reason cited by
motorists when they get pulled over... so how did you arrive at your
conclusion?

Geez, yet another strawman.





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.

If you're not observing speed limits there's nothing to suggest you
simply aren't paying attention.

OK, now I do agree with KRW. You're an idiot.





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.

How the **** do you know?

Well one way is that the cars that I've observed not
fully stopping when making a right-on-red,
I rarely notice them "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
And then the ones that roll stop signs without coming
to a complete stop, where I've
followed them for a bit, the vast majority due it at
every stop sign.

Yet the fact that they see the stop
sign and react consistently to it, strongly suggests
that they are not distracted. If they were distracted,
then I would expect them to miss the stop sign and
go right through it. The fact that they slow normally
starting at a reasonable distance from the sign,
slow almost to a stop, but then make a right turn,
strongly suggests that they know exactly what
they are doing. If they were distracted, then I
would expect to see T bone crashes, rear end
collisions, hitting
curbs, running over pedestrians. Instead all I
see is them consistently failing to come to a
complete and full stop. Pretty basic in my
book.


I also don't notice *most* cars arriving at a red light
with no apparent intention of stopping. Again, if
most cars, or even a lot of cars where doing that
all the time, you'd have one hell of a lot of rear
end collisions at lights or Tbone wrecks at
intersections. I personally can't recall the last
time I saw one.



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.

You're not paying sufficient attention.

Sure, my bad again.



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.

What is there to suggest that? *If driving on the wrong side of the
road is not evidence of distraction, what is?

And yet another diversion into lala land. You brought up
"frequent L turns that can't be made without the room
the wrong side of the road provides". Now that has
morphed into "driving on the wrong side of the road?"

For the record, I don't see this L turn crap happening
here much at all.



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.

Which of your arguments is the basis of those alleged straw men?

Again, I don't know what your point is here.





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.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying smoking in bed is the
leading cause of house fires, then attempting to conclude from that
that most people smoke.

What we have instead is motorists, all of which who motor.


No, what we have is you claiming that because being
distracted is given as the number one cause of accidents,
that it somehow shows that 51%+ of drivers are driving
distracted. Hence, the good analogy, which you obviously
don't understand.

Here's another one. Let's say most people get cancer
from smoking. Does that provide evidence that 51% of all people
smoke?



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.

Yes. *100% of motorists are distracted much of the time. *If you're
not 100% devoted to piloting your vehicle you're distracted by
definition: "1 a : diversion of the attention"http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/distraction

They sure aren't being distracted to the level claimed:

"busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
Fecesbook or applying makeup" If you want to expand
the definition of distracted driving to include thinking about
what time you will arrive at your destination, then sure
100% are distracted. KRW made that point long ago.



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".

I didn't modify it you illiterate ****. *Of course if one is
distracted all the time they're probably going to crash, and pretty
quick.

Well then why are you disputing that above when I
said if most people were driving distracted we should
see wrecks all over the place everywhere we go,
all the time? The fact that we don't says you're the
ignorant **** who dug himself into a hole and continues
to dig away.



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. "

I did not write that.

OK, but you quickly defended it and continue to defend it to
the point that you obviously now own it.




What I first said was:
"Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task
is
easily.... well, you can't ****ing miss it unless you have no idea of
what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
greater than very likely."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/38125746a5857f02?h...

Which was in response to KRW asking for proof of this:

"most driverrs are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Sounds to me like you bought into the statement and
defended it as true. And that is exactly what you've
continued to do, beyond question. My first post in this
called the above statement an exaggeration. You
responded with:

"It isn't exaggeration. "

So, make up your mind.





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.

That's not my list.

It sure as hell is. When I said the statement was an
exaggeration, you said "It isn't an exaggeration".
Geez.....

On Aug 7, 7:09*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:07*pm, gpsman wrote:


snip


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.

That's what you say.

I'm beginning to agree with KRW that there must be
something wrong with you. * You're actually claiming that
the reason most people speed is because they are
distracted? *Not that they know what the speed limit
is, but consciously go faster? * Good grief. *I can
take you down the Parkway here in NJ. *Where the
speed limit is 55mph,, 90%+ of the cars are going
65+. *All distracted? *Of course not. *They just know
that the cops give at least a 10mph leeway and
choose to go faster, with the flow of trafffic because
it's a reasonable, safe speed that feels comfortable.
I do it all the time myself and I'm not texting or updating
facebook. *Do you really drive much?


snip

I've beend driving for som 60 plus years and I don't think I have
_ever_ seen the normal flow at or under the posted. It is _always_
over it by some margin. I suppose given enough resources some
jurisdiction in some universe far far away could do an emphasis long
enough and strong enough to get ehe "flow" down to or under the
posted....for a short time.

Harry K

On Aug 6, 1:00*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
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.

It certainly appears that way. The emphasis has long been on making
vehicles and roads more safe for crashing.

The average motorist is so stupid they wouldn't wear a seat belt until
laws were passed requiring it, and it seems to have peaked at 86% and
is dropping.
(PDF 1.3MB) http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811544.pdf.

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.

That's because every crash is widely considered "accidental",
regardless of "willful misconduct" as the FHWA calls it. Crashes by
drunks and those fleeing police are reported as accidents. In one
instance not too long ago the NYT reported a guy who deliberately and
with malice aforethought "accidentally" ran over (or into) a guy (or
his gf, I forget, I should have saved that link).

Some people do multi-task better than others, but you
really can't take your eyes off the road.

Figuratively. Gauges, mirrors, signs. Keeping your eyes moving is
central to situational awareness.

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.

We help drive most of the time, as does just about everyone I know.

One of my relationship requirements is a defensive driver. I couldn't
respect her if she drove like every other nitwit, and I couldn't stand
the worry when she was driving by herself.

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.

Whatever you do to keep your head in the game is a good thing.
Driving is widely considered by the unconsciously incompetent to be a
matter of reaction times and assumed infallibility while the highly
skilled avoid the circumstances that lead to using their higher
skills.

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.

As long as you're not distracted. The funny thing about driving
distractions is they can be and often are driving-related; 1 nitwit
can distract from the more dangerous, or vulnerable nitwit. Human
attention and visual perception are very funny and complicated things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

We've all experienced failing to see what is right in front of our
noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
they possess, rarely varies.

I'm sure my wife is bored with it, but she does like my driving style.

Sounds like you probably have a pretty good record and chance of
escaping becoming victims of the mayhem.
-----

- gpsman

On Aug 7, 10:09*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:07*pm, gpsman wrote:



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.

"Low"... compared to what?

Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
see if 51%+ of all drivers
were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".

You're too stupid to add to my collection of nitwits, if I still
collected nitwits.
-----

- gpsman

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

On Aug 7, 10:09*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:07*pm, gpsman wrote:



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.

"Low"... compared to what?

Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
see if 51%+ of all drivers
were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".

You're too stupid to add to my collection of nitwits, if I still
collected nitwits.

You forgot how after you found yourself.

On Aug 7, 11:12*am, gpsman wrote:
noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
they possess, rarely varies.


Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. Following
that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
driver behind the wheel for the first time.

But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
established as fact, regardless. And next you'll be
demanding that unless someone else can prove it
false, it's true.

On 8/4/2012 2:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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).


I spend $75 a week for commuting in gas and about $250 a month for toll
hiways. Yes the income earned is worth it but in about 2 or 2 1/2
years, I'll take the $30 000 a year pay cut and work in my hometown.
Factoring in insurance and wear and tear plus maintenance on the
automobile then the gas and toll hiway charges, it's about $10 000 a
year for transportation, maybe more just for that larger salary gain of
say $30 000.

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

On 8/6/2012 5:14 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
speed traps).


How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for
problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken
away sooner?

I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if
this is what you mean by "better enforcement"

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:52:07 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:12*am, gpsman wrote:
noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
they possess, rarely varies.


Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. Following
that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
driver behind the wheel for the first time.

Professional race drivers.

But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
established as fact, regardless. And next you'll be
demanding that unless someone else can prove it
false, it's true.

The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for
over forty years.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:09:32 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 8/6/2012 5:14 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
speed traps).


How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for
problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken
away sooner?

Cops looking for more problem drivers. Texting is already against the law,
under the distracted driving laws. Other issues are a little harder sell but
the idea is the same. Turning or lane-change without a signal is already an
infraction. There are tons...

No, I'm not advocating the yanking of licenses, except as a last resort (the
points system already takes care of that).

I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if
this is what you mean by "better enforcement"

More is probably a more precise word (fewer meanings).

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:03:55 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 8/4/2012 2:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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).


I spend $75 a week for commuting in gas and about $250 a month for toll
hiways. Yes the income earned is worth it but in about 2 or 2 1/2
years, I'll take the $30 000 a year pay cut and work in my hometown.
Factoring in insurance and wear and tear plus maintenance on the
automobile then the gas and toll hiway charges, it's about $10 000 a
year for transportation, maybe more just for that larger salary gain of
say $30 000.

Sure but my solution is to move where the job is. I'm commuting now, for
various reasons but that'll stop Oct 1 when I finally get my wife moved here.
We may be traveling back and forth on the weekends after that until we can get
that house on the market.

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. It is a PITA.

On 8/7/2012 9:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:03:55 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 8/4/2012 2:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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).


I spend $75 a week for commuting in gas and about $250 a month for toll
hiways. Yes the income earned is worth it but in about 2 or 2 1/2
years, I'll take the $30 000 a year pay cut and work in my hometown.
Factoring in insurance and wear and tear plus maintenance on the
automobile then the gas and toll hiway charges, it's about $10 000 a
year for transportation, maybe more just for that larger salary gain of
say $30 000.

Sure but my solution is to move where the job is. I'm commuting now, for
various reasons but that'll stop Oct 1 when I finally get my wife moved here.
We may be traveling back and forth on the weekends after that until we can get
that house on the market.

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. It is a PITA.


I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need
things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o

TDD

On 8/7/2012 10:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for
over forty years.


Hah! You want a link?

And FWIW, don't eat the cheese cuz it expired in 2006

Here you go:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060401.html

On Aug 7, 6:52*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:12*am, gpsman wrote:

noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

Your snipping exhibits your dedication to accuracy.

The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
they possess, rarely varies.

Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. *Following
that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
driver behind the wheel for the first time.

Now, THAT is a straw man.

You discarded the word "exhibit" and wah-****ing-la!, you think you
have forwarded a logical argument.

And, you eliminated one "driver" by introducing a "student"... "behind
the wheel for the first time".

But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
established as fact, regardless. *And next you'll be
demanding that unless someone else can prove it
false, it's true.

Many times the newly licensed driver is a far "better" (safer) driver
than those with many years of experience. Statistically, new truck
drivers are involved in more "bump" incidents while those with all the
experience are -far- more often involved in the catastrophic crashes.
-----

- gpsman

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. *Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. *It is a PITA.

I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need
things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o

TDD

its great in good weather but the pits in snow.....

but I have been on the road my entire life fixing office machines.

If someone gave me a office and required me to be there I would go
stir crazy.....

everday is different i never know what I will be doing

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 05:20:05 -0400, Domicile Dude
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 10:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for
over forty years.


Hah! You want a link?

And FWIW, don't eat the cheese cuz it expired in 2006

Here you go:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060401.html

....and that proves exactly what, HomoGay?

On 8/8/2012 6:50 AM, bob haller wrote:

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. It is a PITA.

I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need
things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o

TDD

its great in good weather but the pits in snow.....

but I have been on the road my entire life fixing office machines.

If someone gave me a office and required me to be there I would go
stir crazy.....

everday is different i never know what I will be doing


To stop moving is to die. ^_^

TDD