On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:00:37 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

You are projecting again. It is *you* who clearly refuses to look for
accidents that are in plain sight.

Did the study that started this conversation find those accidents?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:06:15 -0500, nospam wrote:

it's a pet peeve of mine, even though it's obvious what was meant.

The tentative answer that came back on the alt.usage.english thread
on the difference between a near miss and a hit was that the
specific concept of a miss or hit is related to the "superstructure",
and not necessarily to "damage".

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/batt...ms-illustrious
"Exactly when a near-miss actually caused this damage is uncertain."

http://www.history.navy.mil/research...-dec-1942.html
"Superficial damage resulted from three near miss bombs."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
Other sources claim a stern hit, but Parshall & Tully 2005, pp. 253€“354 and 256€“259, make a case for a near miss, because of rudder damage from a high explosive bomb.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:09:25 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Explosives to not have to actually hit the target to do damage. The
shockwaves do it.

Good point.

That would be a miss, but a miss, with damage.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:38:32 -0600, SeaNymph wrote:

Why do people go hiking, and take their phone?
Makes no sense to me at all.

Huh?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:23:52 -0600, Muggles wrote:

People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.
And dogs.
And, while you're at it, let's ban wives who nag incessantly.
Certainly let's ban putting on makeup (unless it's hands free).
Or, reading a map (unless it's also hands free).
Let's ban coffee hotter than 120 degrees or more than 3/4 full.
Since we're banning distractions, we have to ban loud music.
And about ten thousand other common distractions.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:43:10 +1300, Your Name wrote:

Having a cellphone conversation has already been proven to be more
distracting / dangerous than having a conversation with a passenger.

Eating a banana is probably more distracting than not eating a banana
while driving.

So what?

That doesn't mean it's causing accidents.

In fact, since nobody can find the accidents, it's pretty clear
that using a cellphone doesn't cause accidents any more than
eating a banana does.

You are clearly not a scientist.
The school system has failed you.

If you actually vote, I'm scared.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:40:50 -0600, SeaNymph wrote:

Oh, I agree with that. Manufacturers are making it harder and harder
not to be distracted while driving.

That's funny.

All the cellphones-are-killing-us folks are arguing that cars are getting
safer at the exact same rate that the cellphone-caused accidents are
occurring.

So, you're arguing both sides of the coin.

You can't have that.

You have to either pick that cars are getting safer, and *that* is
why nobody can find the accidents - or - if you argue that cars are
getting more distracting - you can't then argue that those distractions
are causing accidents.

It seems that you'll argue *anything* as long as it results (in your
mind) in accidents (that you can't find).

I sure hope you don't vote.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:19 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

how do they know texting laws, which I assume are almost completely
ignored anyway, are the cause of the decline in hospitalizations?

Don't bring up logic please.
Reasonable questions do not apply here.

(Between you and me, it's scary that some of these people vote.)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:38:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements.
ABS is quite effective in nonfatal crashes.

That's interesting information!
Certainly it's not intuitive.

Even to me.

But, beware.

Very few people here can handle data that doesn't already fit into
their preconceived notions.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:19:25 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Instead you prefer to fixate on total accident
rate, which does not have a direct correlation with cell phone use,

Heh heh... simple unavoidable logic scares you. Doesn't it?

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:21:50 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

False. Accident rate is influenced by many factors completely unrelated
to cell phone use and even distracted driving. That's something you want
to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Except that the accidents that your argument depends upon, don't exist.

Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:00:37 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

You are projecting again. It is *you* who clearly refuses to look for
accidents that are in plain sight.

Did the study that started this conversation find those accidents?

If you had bothered to read it, you wouldn't have to ask. You lose.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:21:50 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

False. Accident rate is influenced by many factors completely unrelated
to cell phone use and even distracted driving. That's something you want
to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Except that the accidents that your argument depends upon, don't exist.

False. There are documented accidents caused by driver distraction due to
cell phone use.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

True, but the ones on phones make more mistakes.

Particularly when they stop looking at the road for 5 or 10 brief seconds.
Time enough there to scoot past a couple of NYC blocks worth of distance,
and never know what you might be running into. Or, like the kid texting
while in a curve, to run into a tree because you didn't notice you ought to
be straightening out again :-) .

But don't waste your time arguing with these freaks who can text with one
eye on their handset while they drive faultlessly with their other eye on
the road :-) . They'll be off the road soon enough, with antics like that.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 01/21/2016 01:08 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science,
let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something
is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than
the first order instigation.


Who would be dumb enough to admit they were texting while driving?


Do the police investigate every accident to see if the driver's
cellphone was in use at the time of the accident?


I doubt the insurance company lawyers even bother unless there are
extreme injuries/death involving lots of money.

On 21/01/2016 02:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"chris" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2016 01:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"chris" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2016 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:


"chris" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2016 04:17, Lewis wrote:
In message
dhosting.com
Jack Black wrote:
Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting
causes
accidents!

You are very confused.

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7
percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American
Journal
of Public Health.

Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11.

You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on
correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global
Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to.

The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
different factors have an affect on car crash related
hospitalisations. They found that texting bans, handheld bans,
seatbelt laws and graduate licensing laws all had a measurable and
significant decrease in the hospitalisation rates.

Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had
significant increases in hospitalisation rates.

Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect.

When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because
that must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads.
Yes, plenty of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,
but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from
work, they will be more car sharing and use of public transport
with the higher gas prices.

Possibly,

Absolutely certainly, you can see that in the stats.

Which stats?

The change in traffic volumes with the price of gas.

And they are shown where...?

but there was no difference between states that had a texting ban vs
those which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect of
price was uniform between them.

You said gas prices had no effect.

In this study. Which was looking at the difference in hospitalisation
rates between states with or without bans on texting while driving.
Presumably fuel prices would change more or less in sync in all states

They don’t actually.


How so? Evidence?

and so would have no differential effect between the ban or no-ban
states.


regardless of whether they do or do not change in sync, according to the
study any changes in fuel price are not associated with changes in
hospitalisation rates between the ban vs no-ban states.

On 20/01/2016 16:22, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage
feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take
responsibility...


I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the
names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your
last comment, here.

Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones
are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be
more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger
distraction to them than say listening to a radio?

Have you tried communicating with a teenager when they're attached to
their technology? It's like communicating to someone on the moon via CB
radio. There are huge gaps in the conversation and you often have to
repeat yourself or speak louder.

No. Teenagers are not better at dealing with distractions than the rest
of the population. In fact my resident teenager has gotten worse than
she was before she hit the 'teens.

On 21/01/2016 01:06, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, Jack Black
wrote:

Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
accidents!

Here is the quote!

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-...-a-difference/

how do they know texting laws, which I assume are almost completely
ignored anyway, are the cause of the decline in hospitalizations?

Showing cause and effect is really hard with real people in the real world.

In this study they took hospitalisation data caused by car accidents and
tried to measure if there is any difference between states that have a
ban with those that don't. By creating a mathematical model against 8
years worth of data they could test whether the presence of the ban
results in a measurable and meaningful difference. They found a 7%
difference which given the amount of data they had was strong enough to
be explained by the presence or not a texting ban.

On 1/20/2016 7:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 5:40 PM, SeaNymph wrote:


The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already
exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me.


Attitude.
Bad things only happen to the other guy, not me.

I suppose it's the "stick your head in the sand" philosophy. Sad, but true.

On 1/20/2016 7:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 5:40 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already
exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me.

Attitude.
Bad things only happen to the other guy, not me.

The reason car manufacturers don't install blocking technology in cars
is because the loud mouthed selfish idiots would complain too much ...
the same reason America *still* lets every looney have a gun.

The issue of political correctness, and not offended anyone has gotten
too ridiculous for words, imo.

I find it quite surprising that the government doesn't mandate this,
since they are so fond of deciding for themselves what's best for everyone.

On 1/20/2016 7:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , SeaNymph
wrote:


The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already
exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me.

because passengers would be incredibly ****ed if their phones don't
work, as would the driver in an emergency.

An emergency? I would think if there was an emergency, a person would
stop the car, or the car would already be stopped, thus rendering the
phone usable again.

On 1/21/2016 12:49 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:40:50 -0600, SeaNymph wrote:

Oh, I agree with that. Manufacturers are making it harder and harder
not to be distracted while driving.

That's funny.

All the cellphones-are-killing-us folks are arguing that cars are getting
safer at the exact same rate that the cellphone-caused accidents are
occurring.

So, you're arguing both sides of the coin.

You can't have that.

You have to either pick that cars are getting safer, and *that* is
why nobody can find the accidents - or - if you argue that cars are
getting more distracting - you can't then argue that those distractions
are causing accidents.

It seems that you'll argue *anything* as long as it results (in your
mind) in accidents (that you can't find).

I sure hope you don't vote.

I am not arguing both sides of anything. I merely made a statement,
which I believe to be true.

Cell phones don't kill people, any more than guns do. It's the people
using them who kill people.

On 1/20/2016 7:09 PM, AV3 wrote:
On 1/20/16, 13:58, SeaNymph wrote:
On 1/20/2016 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

...

I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device.



It's the new normal.


It's only the "new normal" if people accept it as being so.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:48:50 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each other
face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference?
It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on newsgroups?


Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

Firstly I was talking about the objection of people using phones while standing in the pavement.

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not "more intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact with someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS distracting.

--
Cindy once remarked to her dentist that she didn't know what would be worse - having a baby, or having a tooth pulled.
The Dentist replied, "Well make up your mind, Cindy - because I need to know which way to position the chair."

Totally agree with you. It all depends on what your definition of "normal" is

Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:09:25 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Explosives to not have to actually hit the target to do damage. The
shockwaves do it.

Good point.

That would be a miss, but a miss, with damage.

I served in the field artillery unit. Shells hitting target within 50
yards is considered bulls eye. Now they have GPS guided shells.
Guy like you is perfect candidate to be a politician.

Dick Phallic wrote:
On 01/21/2016 01:08 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science,
let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something
is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than
the first order instigation.

Who would be dumb enough to admit they were texting while driving?

Interestingly, "Paul M. Cook" has admitted he does just that regularly...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/21/2016 8:35 AM, johnmondin81 wrote:
SeaNymph;3501251 Wrote:
On 1/20/2016 7:09 PM, AV3 wrote:-
On 1/20/16, 13:58, SeaNymph wrote:-
On 1/20/2016 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:-
On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

...-

I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device.
-


It's the new normal.

-
It's only the "new normal" if people accept it as being so.

Totally agree with you. It all depends on what your definition of
"normal" is


That's true, and of course, it's about what people are willing to
overlook and tolerate I suppose.

On 2016-01-21, Tony Hwang wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Been there, done that, almost wrecked the car. She was a hottie, and I
was young, dumb, and... Luckily I had sense enough to pull over shortly
thereafter. Lesson learned. : )

There are two kinda person. One who learns from other' mistakes.
One who has to experience it to learn(some times paying the price
with his(her) own life.

We all learn from others and our own mistakes. It's part of being human.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:49:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Swamped by the reduction in the accidents due to the better
design of cars and roads, you silly little pathological liar.

You think better design of cars did it?

Most people who aren't biased or trying to justify illogical positions
recognize that a myriad of factors unrelated to cell phone use
contribute to the decline or increase of total accident rates.

Really?

Yep.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:23:42 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

More insults of intellect. Not surprised.

And, you didn't answer the question.

You are confused again. You asked the question of Your Name - not me.
You don't get this Usenet thing, do you?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:19:25 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Instead you prefer to fixate on total accident rate, which does not
have a direct correlation with cell phone use,

Heh heh...

You aren't as witty as you think, old man.

simple unavoidable logic scares you. Doesn't it?

Logic has little to do with it; and none of the pure bull**** you have
ever uttered is scary to anyone.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Been there, done that, almost wrecked the car. She was a hottie, and I
was young, dumb, and... Luckily I had sense enough to pull over shortly
thereafter. Lesson learned. : )


This couple was not young and stupid, they were older and stupid. IIRC,
late 50's. Mercedes convertible too.

On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Been there, done that, almost wrecked the car. She was a hottie, and I
was young, dumb, and... Luckily I had sense enough to pull over shortly
thereafter. Lesson learned. : )

This couple was not young and stupid, they were older and stupid. IIRC,
late 50's. Mercedes convertible too.

Ouch. We weren't doing anything that dangerous. I admit exaggerated a
bit - we didn't almost wreck; but I did swerve close enough to the edge
of the road to make me slow down and pull over. We were on a deserted
country road in West Texas in the middle of the night at the time; but
since there was nobody around, there wasn't any good reason not to pull
over and give her my full attention. : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/21/2016 12:44 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:23:52 -0600, Muggles wrote:

People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.


If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

And dogs.
And, while you're at it, let's ban wives who nag incessantly.
Certainly let's ban putting on makeup (unless it's hands free).
Or, reading a map (unless it's also hands free).
Let's ban coffee hotter than 120 degrees or more than 3/4 full.
Since we're banning distractions, we have to ban loud music.
And about ten thousand other common distractions.



--
Maggie

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

On 1/20/2016 11:56 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ;
) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the
driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a
BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....


{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

huh That HAS to feel really weird!

And no shift stick. It is all push buttons now. I am still getting used
to it so I can shift without looking at the buttons.

What kind of car is it? I'm sure you've probably posted that info, but
I don't remember.

--
Maggie

On 1/21/2016 6:14 AM, chris wrote:
On 20/01/2016 16:22, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage
feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take
responsibility...


I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the
names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your
last comment, here.

Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones
are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be
more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger
distraction to them than say listening to a radio?


Have you tried communicating with a teenager when they're attached to
their technology?

Yes. My 3 are no longer teens, now, though. They're in their
middle-late 20's, and one is in her 30's. I hope you survive raising teens!

It's like communicating to someone on the moon via CB
radio. There are huge gaps in the conversation and you often have to
repeat yourself or speak louder.

Luckily, I spent a good deal of time of my own online learning chat
shorthand, which has translated over to texting, so at least I "get"
what they're messages are saying.

No. Teenagers are not better at dealing with distractions than the rest
of the population. In fact my resident teenager has gotten worse than
she was before she hit the 'teens.

I wasn't necessarily referring to teens, alone, but a generation of
kids/young adults who grew up with the technology and have embraced it
as part of their "normal".
--
Maggie

On 2016-01-21, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

Add people with bad body odor to that list.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Your Name wrote:
[...]
Ah, the ridiculous "flappy paddle" system that's becoming a fad in the
car industry these days. :-( Usually that means it's not a real manual
/ "stick shift" car, but a silly automatic pretending to be a manual /
"stick shift".

Well, in the Formula 1 (and most of the rest of the car racing) world
they don't consider them "silly" at all.

Remember that most of what we consider quite normal or even standard
now, was a "fad" once or/and came from other industries (like my car
racing example).

And to get somewhat back to the topic of the thread, these "flappy
paddle" can make driving *safer*, because your hands can remain on the
steering wheel, instead of fiddling with the gear-stick (or worse :-))!