On 01/21/2016 09:33 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Sometimes? Try*most* of the time. Cops lie as a matter of policy. It's
perfectly legal for them to lie to citizens; meanwhile a citizen lying to a
cop means almost certain arrest.

Never talk to the cops.

Follow this link, scroll to the bottom to view Professor Duane's video on why you should never talk to the cops.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/fa...taff/duane.cfm

On 1/21/2016 10:22 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Yep, because finding out "what's for dinner" is so Earth-shatteringly
important that it can't wait to be done when parked somewhere sensible
or when you actually get home. :-\


Well, I have to plan what wine to open. Where I call there is no
traffic to speak of. What I don't do is make a sales call or tech
support call when in fast moving heavy traffic. That is very
distracting. Oh, it is also hands free but that is a minor difference
in attention span.

On 1/21/2016 8:02 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.

Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.

not as often as humans fail.

nothing is perfect, but as long as it does better, it's a win, and
since drunk driving, texting, falling asleep, etc., will no longer
happen, that's rather easy to do.

keep in mind that autonomous vehicles will have radar, lidar and video
scanning 360 degrees non-stop, which means it will be able to see
things humans could never see, particularly at night and also in fog.


I guess I just don't trust the technology to not be hackable.

--
Maggie

On 1/21/2016 8:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/21/2016 8:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/21/2016 7:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least
any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.


Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.


Bought a new car a couple of months ago. I'm still a bit skeptical but
less than I was. My car can easily follow another at highway speeds and
adjust speed and even come to a stop with me just steering. Even helps
with that with lane departure.

I've posted a link before to Genesis driverless caravan.

Is that cruise control?

--
Maggie

On 1/21/2016 8:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Muggles wrote:

traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.


Police in some towns are using phones for privacy as people are
listening to scanners. Bad guys listen to not get caught.

That cop may have been heading to a big drug bust. Or ordering lunch.


I just thought it was kind of funny that I saw that right after recently
reading this thread about using cell phones while driving.

--
Maggie

On 1/21/2016 9:13 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:
On 1/21/2016 1:46 PM, nospam wrote:

several car makers have announced autonomous functionality as soon as
the 2017 model year.

I've seen a lot of testing going on with such things, but I still thinks
it's a decade or more away from fully autonomous cars being the norm on
the roads.

The manufacturers currently (and of course plans may change) have a
range of dates for introducing self-driving cars. Some are talking
about 2020 while others are saying 2025 or later.

The reality is that no matter when (or if) these cars do get released,
they will be so hideously expensive to begin with that there will be
very few of them on the roads and it'll take another 5-10 years for the
technology starts to trickle down to more "normal" cars, and a further
10-20+ years before the majority of cars on roads are self-driving.

Even then, many of the manufacturers are planning to have their cars
include self-driving as an option and leaving it up to the driver
whether or not they want to be in control on a journey-by-journey
basis.

It's going to be a long long time before *all* cars on the road are
self-driving.


I imagine it's a thing of the future, but not sure I'll get to see it
happen as a normal thing.

--
Maggie

On 1/21/2016 9:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.


At least he wasn't texting and driving.

--
Maggie

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where they
type and drive all the time, checking license plates or pulling up
information relevant to a call.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:


I imagine it's a thing of the future, but not sure I'll get to see it
happen as a normal thing.

how long do you expect to be alive?

if it's more than 5-10 years, you will.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:


I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.

Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.

not as often as humans fail.

nothing is perfect, but as long as it does better, it's a win, and
since drunk driving, texting, falling asleep, etc., will no longer
happen, that's rather easy to do.

keep in mind that autonomous vehicles will have radar, lidar and video
scanning 360 degrees non-stop, which means it will be able to see
things humans could never see, particularly at night and also in fog.


I guess I just don't trust the technology to not be hackable.

you do realize that airplanes, some of which carry 300+ passengers, fly
almost entirely on autopilot, right?

nothing is perfectly safe.

cars today can be hacked, just in a different way. someone could
sabotage it or maybe just shoot at cars, such as the instance that
happened just recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_freeway_shootings

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/21/2016 10:22 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Yep, because finding out "what's for dinner" is so Earth-shatteringly
important that it can't wait to be done when parked somewhere sensible
or when you actually get home. :-\

Well, I have to plan what wine to open. Where I call there is no
traffic to speak of. What I don't do is make a sales call or tech
support call when in fast moving heavy traffic. That is very
distracting. Oh, it is also hands free but that is a minor difference
in attention span.

Unless you're planning to also stupidly open the bottle while driving
the car, there's absolutely no reason it can't wait until you get home
or park at the wine shop. :-\

Wild Bill wrote:
On 01/21/2016 02:17 PM, 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.


Or stinky obese people with their rolls of sweaty greasy fat hanging
over the arm rest.

You youself was once a baby, your kids too. Give some slack. Usually
baby sits at the most front seat with more room.

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Same kind of irrational impatient attitude that sees
these people execute dangerous lane changes into the path of oncoming
traffic, just to leapfrog one car and save no time at all.

Watched an idiot lady do exactly that just yesterday. She was originally
behind me in the right-most exit lane, then jerked over two lanes into
the left-most lane to swerve in front of and dodge several cars, only to
end up right in front of me at the exit red light. Pure idiocy.

It's a wonder more accidents don't happen, when you think about it.

And try being a passenger of a driver foolish enough to do this. I've
never been so scared of dying in a car before or since, as it was maybe
half a second at most before the oncoming cars in their lane rushed
through the space we were.

Remarkably that driver still hasn't killed themself.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

nospam Wrote in message:
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.


And how do you suggest we ban 'crying babies'?

Do you think they intentionally do it to annoy others?

Children are a fundamental part of our society and yes small
children sometimes cry. Ostracising them doesn't help
anyone.

A more tolerant attitude to children and their parents (yes,
they're not keen on the noise either) would make everyone a bit
less uptight filtering down to make the kids happier and in
return, you.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special, so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt? A helmet while
biking? A safety line while up high? Heh. Of course not. It's only other
people who do not perform perfectly, have accidents, and have to have
society deal with the consequences. Stupid other people! Why can't they
be more like you?

Meanwhile back in reality... :-)

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:43:27 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe
you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it, which has
been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not very good at
multitasking, and studies also show the ones who think they are the best at
it are actually among the worst. The fact remains a passenger who is
holding a conversation with a driver can respond to cues while a person
miles away over the phone simply cannot.

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

--
Sky have just won the rights to screen the first World Origami Championships from Tokyo.
Unfortunately it's only available on Paper View.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:32:59 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:
In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
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.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we are
constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there is no
reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two things at
once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm driving along
with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round something, I will simply
drop the phone. I have done so in the past.

It's amazing how people can (supposedly) read something and still get
the completely wrong conclusion or warp it to their own idiotic wishes.
:-\

If you had actually read that paragraph then you'd have seen that is
says a person on a phone is concentrating more on the phone call than
compared to a a conversation with passenger ... that means they're more
distracted from doing what they're meant to be doing: DRIVING THE DAMN
CAR!

You said "ridiculously" - referring to the lower intelligence folk, who would get distracted by a woman in a short skirt anyway.

--
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:35:40 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 1/21/2016 2:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
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.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we
are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there
is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two
things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm
driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round
something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so in the past.


Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Cops are much better trained at driving so I doubt he had much problem.

--
*Squawk!* Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine! [Parroty error]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:33:49 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/21/2016 3:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we
are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there
is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two
things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm
driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round
something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so in the past.

Good for you. Not everyone thinks like that.

Then they will die. No big deal.

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.

Just let the **** ones write their cars off.

There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Sometimes I can't get the damn thing out of my pocket without standing up.

Texting is a different situation. I never look at my phone while driving.

I do and have. In fact I've done 90mph on a motorway while texting with a broken arm.

--
Worlds most powerful nob enlarger - a space suit with a fly zip

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

A helmet while biking?

Cycling or motorbiking?

A safety line while up high?

Depends how well I can hold onto things. Am I using lots of tools which need a hand or two?

Heh. Of course not.

Invalid assumption.

It's only other
people who do not perform perfectly, have accidents, and have to have
society deal with the consequences. Stupid other people! Why can't they
be more like you?

Meanwhile back in reality... :-)

You're clearly a **** driver and are making yourself feel better by claiming many others are the same. The fact remains the vast majority of people never have anything more than a minor bump in their entire life of driving.

--
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe - Frank Zappa

In article , Your Name
wrote:

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Yep, because finding out "what's for dinner" is so Earth-shatteringly
important that it can't wait to be done when parked somewhere sensible
or when you actually get home. :-\

Well, I have to plan what wine to open. Where I call there is no
traffic to speak of. What I don't do is make a sales call or tech
support call when in fast moving heavy traffic. That is very
distracting. Oh, it is also hands free but that is a minor difference
in attention span.

Unless you're planning to also stupidly open the bottle while driving
the car, there's absolutely no reason it can't wait until you get home
or park at the wine shop. :-\

there is if the wine store is on the way home, saving the need to
backtrack to go back and get something.

In article , Chris
wrote:

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

And how do you suggest we ban 'crying babies'?

easy. have baby flights and no baby flights.

pax with babies take the former, pax who want peace and quiet take the
latter and pax who don't care can take either one.

at a minimum, put pax with babies in the back of the plane, so if one
does scream, those in the front, who are paying a premium fare to be in
the front, aren't bothered as much.

Do you think they intentionally do it to annoy others?

it doesn't matter why. the reality is that it *does* annoy others.

on a plane, there's nowhere for the parent to go with the baby nor is
there anywhere for the other passengers to go to get away from it.

Children are a fundamental part of our society and yes small
children sometimes cry. Ostracising them doesn't help
anyone.

they can cry all they want, just not in closed spaces where it annoys
others.

there are places where babies are not allowed at all. guess why that
is.

that includes some restaurants, movie theaters, stage performances,
churches and synagogues, museums, schools and more.

some movie theaters even have a soundproof cry room to accommodate
parents who bring a baby to a movie. why a parent would do that i don't
know, but there are really bad parents in this world and movie theaters
to accommodate them.

A more tolerant attitude to children and their parents (yes,
they're not keen on the noise either) would make everyone a bit
less uptight filtering down to make the kids happier and in
return, you.

more tolerant???

i once was on a flight with a kid behind me who kept on banging the
tray table, the one that was attached to my seat. he thought it was
fun. i didn't.

i asked the mother several times to do something and she did nothing.
she didn't give a **** and the kid knew that, so he did whatever he
wanted. that right there is bad parenting. i asked the flight attendant
to help and that wasn't any more effective. six hours of hell.

i'm supposed to tolerate that?? are you ****ing kidding me?

there are places where people expect to have peace and quiet. that's
what makes them happy.

In article , Tony Hwang
wrote:


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

Or stinky obese people with their rolls of sweaty greasy fat hanging
over the arm rest.

You youself was once a baby, your kids too. Give some slack.

so what?

Usually
baby sits at the most front seat with more room.

you mean bulkhead seats, which are very desirable to frequent fliers
because of the additional legroom and that there's nobody in front to
recline into their space.

bulkheads are also *just* behind first/business class seats, with pax
who are paying premium fares.

not that it matters a whole lot, since a screaming baby can be heard in
the entire cabin.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:43:27 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not,
maybe you should consider not driving, which already involves doing
about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it,
which has been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not
very good at multitasking, and studies also show the ones who
think they are the best at it are actually among the worst. The
fact remains a passenger who is holding a conversation with a
driver can respond to cues while a person miles away over the
phone simply cannot.

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

Mr Macaw is the well known unemployable ****** and troll Peter Hucker. He
has many socks.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:43:27 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe
you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it, which has
been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not very good at
multitasking, and studies also show the ones who think they are the best at
it are actually among the worst. The fact remains a passenger who is
holding a conversation with a driver can respond to cues while a person
miles away over the phone simply cannot.

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

You haven't observed any such thing, liar. 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

nospam wrote:
In article , Your Name
wrote:

Unless you're planning to also stupidly open the bottle while driving
the car, there's absolutely no reason it can't wait until you get home
or park at the wine shop. :-\

there is if the wine store is on the way home, saving the need to
backtrack to go back and get something.

No reason you can't check once you pull into the store parking lot, which
is much safer than doing it while driving.

--
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

Just Me wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:56:55 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

No, an observation that you can't do a simple task like multitasking.

Mr Macaw is the well known unemployable ****** and troll Peter Hucker. He
has many socks.

Good to know. Thanks.

--
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 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where they
type and drive all the time, checking license plates or pulling up
information relevant to a call.


I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:05:19 -0600
Muggles wrote:

On 1/21/2016 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light
to change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the
highway traffic coming off the highway heading across my path
showed a police car going past me and the cop driving was
talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's
appropriate for doing their job (the obvious example being
speeding and running red traffic lights when on an emergency call
out). Unfortunately there are many cases of police being just as
moronically stupid as the rest of the human race and using their
cellphone for non-official business while driving, illegally
parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where
they type and drive all the time, checking license plates or
pulling up information relevant to a call.


I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.


Why do you need the government to tell you everything
you may or may not do?

Get some real balls in your life.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where they
type and drive all the time, checking license plates or pulling up
information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

it is for non-cops.

On Jan 22, 2016, Muggles wrote
(in ):

On 1/21/2016 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where they
type and drive all the time, checking license plates or pulling up
information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:45:59 -0800
Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, Muggles wrote
(in
):

On 1/21/2016 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for
light to change. I was in the left turn lane facing north,
and the highway traffic coming off the highway heading
across my path showed a police car going past me and the
cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's
appropriate for doing their job (the obvious example being
speeding and running red traffic lights when on an emergency
call out). Unfortunately there are many cases of police being
just as moronically stupid as the rest of the human race and
using their cellphone for non-official business while
driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where
they type and drive all the time, checking license plates or
pulling up information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/



Broken link! WTF??

In article , burfordTjustice
wrote:

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where
they type and drive all the time, checking license plates or
pulling up information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/


Broken link! WTF??

the link works just fine.

you need a better newsreader, one which is rfc compliant.

On 2016-01-22 17:46:26 +0000, burfordTjustice said:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:45:59 -0800
Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, Muggles wrote
(in
):
On 1/21/2016 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for
light to change. I was in the left turn lane facing north,
and the highway traffic coming off the highway heading
across my path showed a police car going past me and the
cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's
appropriate for doing their job (the obvious example being
speeding and running red traffic lights when on an emergency
call out). Unfortunately there are many cases of police being
just as moronically stupid as the rest of the human race and
using their cellphone for non-official business while
driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where
they type and drive all the time, checking license plates or
pulling up information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/


Broken link! WTF??

Consider your broken Usenet client.
....but just for you;
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/01/21/eagan-police-fine-man-for-dwr-driving-while-reading/


--


Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-01-22, Barney Fife wrote:
On 01/21/2016 09:33 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Sometimes? Try*most* of the time. Cops lie as a matter of policy. It's
perfectly legal for them to lie to citizens; meanwhile a citizen lying to a
cop means almost certain arrest.

Never talk to the cops.

Oh I never do voluntarily. That's just asking for it.

Follow this link, scroll to the bottom to view Professor Duane's video
on why you should never talk to the cops.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/fa...taff/duane.cfm

I've watched that before; great advice. : )

--
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 2016-01-22, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Same kind of irrational impatient attitude that sees
these people execute dangerous lane changes into the path of oncoming
traffic, just to leapfrog one car and save no time at all.

Watched an idiot lady do exactly that just yesterday. She was originally
behind me in the right-most exit lane, then jerked over two lanes into
the left-most lane to swerve in front of and dodge several cars, only to
end up right in front of me at the exit red light. Pure idiocy.

It's a wonder more accidents don't happen, when you think about it.

And try being a passenger of a driver foolish enough to do this. I've
never been so scared of dying in a car before or since, as it was maybe
half a second at most before the oncoming cars in their lane rushed
through the space we were.

Remarkably that driver still hasn't killed themself.

Give them time. What I worry about is the other innocent people they may
injure in the process...

--
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 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The
chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

Color me shocked...

You're clearly a **** driver

Sure he is - just because you say so...

--
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 Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:20:36 -0800
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-01-22 17:46:26 +0000, burfordTjustice
said:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:45:59 -0800
Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, Muggles wrote
(in
):
On 1/21/2016 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for
light to change. I was in the left turn lane facing north,
and the highway traffic coming off the highway heading
across my path showed a police car going past me and the
cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's
appropriate for doing their job (the obvious example being
speeding and running red traffic lights when on an emergency
call out). Unfortunately there are many cases of police being
just as moronically stupid as the rest of the human race and
using their cellphone for non-official business while
driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

At least he wasn't texting and driving.

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them, where
they type and drive all the time, checking license plates or
pulling up information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal while
driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/


Broken link! WTF??

Consider your broken Usenet client.
...but just for you;
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/01/21/eagan-police-fine-man-for-dwr-driving-while-reading/



See, now why could you not do that correctly first time?
lazy?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:49:47 -0500
nospam wrote:

In article , burfordTjustice
wrote:

even better, cops have a laptop sitting right next to them,
where they type and drive all the time, checking license
plates or pulling up information relevant to a call.

I hadn't thought of that! I wonder if that should be illegal
while driving, too.

There is always this other distraction option to try out.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...e-man-for-dwr-
driving-while-reading/


Broken link! WTF??

the link works just fine.

you need a better newsreader, one which is rfc compliant.

Oh dear..usenet police....noted and ignored.

On 1/22/2016 9:54 AM, nospam wrote:




not that it matters a whole lot, since a screaming baby can be heard in
the entire cabin.


Never bothered me on a plane. Babies can't help it. Only time is like
at a restaurant where the parent can take the kid and do what has to be
done to stop them but ignorantly chooses not to. .