On 13 Jan 2005 09:38:10 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

If the e-commerce site I'm responsible is down, the shareholders lose
an immense amount of money.

Boo hoo. If you cause an crash because you're on the phone,
folks die. Hang up and drive. Or go park somewhere and
chat to your hearts content.

Tell you what, Jim. I've been an EMT and firefighter for more than
a dozen years. I'm familiar with car crashes, and I'm guessing I'm
a bit ahead of you in this regard. So how about you not lecture me
on car crashes, OK? And it's part of my job to answer the phone
when it rings. Don't like it? Too bad.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

on car crashes, OK? And it's part of my job to answer the phone
when it rings. Don't like it? Too bad.

Just don't do in NY state my friend. Mr. State Trooper
will write you a nice summons. Don't like that? Too bad indeed.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 13 Jan 2005 12:46:25 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

on car crashes, OK? And it's part of my job to answer the phone
when it rings. Don't like it? Too bad.

Just don't do in NY state my friend. Mr. State Trooper
will write you a nice summons. Don't like that? Too bad indeed.

Great. If my boss required me to do something illegal, it'd be a
problem then, wouldn't it. Plenty of stupid laws on the books Jim,
wouldn't you agree? Doesn't mean there's logic behind them.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:28:01 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

Studies have shown that using a cell phone during driving diminshes
one's performance as much as driving under the influence of alcohol.

How about using the squad car radio?

Bingo! Cops use the radio, phone AND a computer while driving. Are
they smarter, brighter, more gifted. I don't believe so.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Great. If my boss required me to do something illegal, it'd be a
problem then, wouldn't it. Plenty of stupid laws on the books Jim,
wouldn't you agree? Doesn't mean there's logic behind them.

You don't get it. I *don't* think it's a stupid law.

What I think is stupid is this: folks driving around
and talking on the phone, endangering other road users.
Does your personal use do that? I can't say one way or
the other, and for the purposes of usenet I'm perfectly
willing to admit that you are one of the concientious
ones who takes great pains to not become distracted
and cause accidents.

However that does put you in a one-percenter catagory,
because all the other folks who I see weaving around
on the road and being total jerks invariably have a
phone glued to their ear. So I think the law is a
great idea. I just wish they'd start enforcing the darn
thing.

And yes, I think things *have* gotten worse since the
advent of cell phones. Used to be I would see a driver
per week on the Taconic doing something moronic. Reading
a newspaper, using an eyelash curler. Now it's about once
a day and it's always a cell phone. It's gotten to the
point that I try to alert the phone user to my presence
now right away, before riding near to them. Phone means horn
now.

I think that cell phone use has actually reduced the number
of cases of DWI because most drunks cannot manage to talk
on their phone and start their car at the same time. And
if they do they usually crash in the parking lot before
they make it to a public street.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 13 Jan 2005 14:01:01 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Great. If my boss required me to do something illegal, it'd be a
problem then, wouldn't it. Plenty of stupid laws on the books Jim,
wouldn't you agree? Doesn't mean there's logic behind them.

You don't get it. I *don't* think it's a stupid law.

I _do_ get it, and I disagree with you, Jim.

What I think is stupid is this: folks driving around
and talking on the phone, endangering other road users.
Does your personal use do that?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

I can't say one way or
the other, and for the purposes of usenet I'm perfectly
willing to admit that you are one of the concientious
ones who takes great pains to not become distracted
and cause accidents.

I'd like to think so, and historical evidence (lack of
problems) seems to support that theory.

However that does put you in a one-percenter catagory,
because all the other folks who I see weaving around
on the road and being total jerks invariably have a
phone glued to their ear.

But again, are you noticing _me_ when you're driving next
to me, and I'm on the phone? I give you no reason to
notice me, so you don't see me. What is the number of folks
you notice vs. don't notice?

So I think the law is a
great idea. I just wish they'd start enforcing the darn
thing.

I'd prefer punishing actions rather than possessions.
Drive unsafely, for whichever reason, get a ticket. Doesn't
matter if it's because they're a bad driver on the phone, or
a bad driver changing CDs, or a bad driver dropping a cigarette
into their lap, or a bad driver just being a bad driver, the
end effect is the same. Likewise, if you can change a CD
or talk on the phone and not be a problem, why should you be
punished for the bad drivers?

This is dangerously close to the eternal gun-control argument.

I think that cell phone use has actually reduced the number
of cases of DWI because most drunks cannot manage to talk
on their phone and start their car at the same time. And
if they do they usually crash in the parking lot before
they make it to a public street.

I think your opinions are based on something other than logic
and facts.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I'd prefer punishing actions rather than possessions.
Drive unsafely, for whichever reason, get a ticket.

Agree strongly. However folks don't get ticketed for
*posessing* a phone. It's a particular combination of
a) driving and b) using it that defines the illegal
act.

The state legislature has decided that the correlation
between poor driving and cell phone use is large enough
to link the two, legally speaking.

I too wish that poor driving, and not for example
speed, were the triggering event for a ticket.

I have *never* seen cops around here issue tickets for
something like lane discipline. But they will write
one for fifteen miles over the limit on a stretch of
open, empty road.

To put it another way, cops don't pull folks over in
rush hour, when all the fun-n-games happen. It's
simply too dangerous for them. They wait and run the
standard speed trap or seatbelt trap during the off
hours, when they can collect their town revenue enhancements
without causing a ruckus.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Jan 2005 17:38:49 -0800, jim rozen
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But have they got around to DVDs yet? We have vehicles being sold with
_dash_ mount_ DfVDs as a standard gimmick! Nothing said. You'd think
the gerks selling the stuff would think, and the govmnt would learn.

Heh. Around here you are too late my friend. NY has already
made using a hand-held phone while driving, a ticketable
offence. Next, it will be using any phone at all while
behind the wheel.

I think folks should be allowed to talk on the phone
while driving. As long as the driver's seat is in front
of the front bumper.

hehe!

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:10:12 -0500, Gene Kearns
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Let's just say that if you are talking on the radio, chances are you
are being directed where to go and at what altitude... flight
plan.... sort of like.. the phone rings and somebody changes all of
your plans....

But the guy is not talking chatter. He is not holding onto the phone
while trying to juggle the multi-turn wheel around a rightangle bend
at lights. And in 90% of cases, vehicles are actually in far more
dangerous proximity than planes anyway. A car driver probably makes
more decisions than a pilot in most journeys. Not as complex perhaps,
but far more constant, and with far less control and planning.

The person changing all of your plans is not your wife wanting ghe
shopping. It's somebody who) ost of the time) knows where you are and
is helping you to be where you should be.

Ignoring them is also not as dangerous as ingnoring the shopping
instructions.

If you say the radio chatter of a pilot is a distraction to him, so
are roads, white lines, traffic lights, one way signs etc to any
driver.

It is arguable that the people who use the phone and have a prang are
going to find something else anyway. But the phone seems to be a
better grabber than anything else of people's attentions.

In West Oz they are talking about banning _any_ phone talk, hendheld
or not. Phone conversations are being said by some to be more
distracting than talking to the passenger.


otherwise, you might be transmitting in the blind, announcing your
position and *hoping* that somebody is listening...

On 12 Jan 2005 09:26:51 -0800, jim rozen
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

It's funny but nobody ever comes down on the *other* side
of this issue. Nobody ever posts, "yeah, I talk on the
phone all the time and it never causes a problem, you guys
are just nuts."

Well Gene Kearns comes close....

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:54:40 GMT, (Dave Mundt)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I am annoyed by folks that clasp the cell phone to their
ear while driving, and, are not paying attention to the road...as
a matter of fact, the majority of the close calls I have had in
the past few years have COME from exactly that sort of stupid
behavior.

Yup

now...last year, due to circumstances beyond my control,
I was forced to get a cell phone. While it does not happen often,
I do end up talking while on the road at times. I have found,
though, that with a headset, it is no more distracting for me
to talk on it, then, it is to talk with a passenger in the
car. Of course, I also make bloody sure to pay more attention
to the driving than the conversation.

Which makes you unusual. For one thing, you don't _normally_ talk to
your passenger about the method of sale of a house that is urgent, or
have an argument about how to run the office. Many accidents have also
been the result of driver and passenger having an argument. Phone
messages tend to be more "Critical" than a talk to the passenger.

I suspect that the big problem with cell phones and
driving IS the fact that we are trained from birth to pay
100 % of our attention to the phone conversation.

And that too.

While I waver back and forth on the issue, I generally
feel that we should not ban cell phone use in the vehicle,
just because it is a waste of time, and, we already have too
many laws in America that bring the fences in too close
to us citizens. It is a law that would be almost universally
ignored, and so would act to erode what little respect the
public still has for the structure of laws in this country.

I disagree. This argument has been used to try to arrange the
legalisation of just about everything. "Everybody does it" Can't catch
em anyway". Catch enough people and people start to listen. It seems
to have worked here.

It is also a law that could ONLY be enforced in a selective
fashion, which *would* mean that it would be abused by
the authorities. After all, if the cops ticketed EVERYONE
they caught using a cell phone while driving, not only would
they have a huge public outcry, but, doughnut sales would
drop terribly, and, (if this area is any example) about
half the tickets would go to cops themselves.

Why should a public outcry ensue, and so what? We have a huge public
outcry against speed cameras, and they just go on using them. I waver
on that issue, because speed cameras have all sorts of lacks as
enrorcers of good sense. But in the end, you does the crime you pays
the fine.

In article , Old Nick says...

In West Oz they are talking about banning _any_ phone talk, hendheld
or not. Phone conversations are being said by some to be more
distracting than talking to the passenger.

Obviously. And the reason is, the person on the other end of the
phone line is not physically at risk during the conversation. If
one is in a car, yammering away, one tends to *stop* when the
car is about to crash. This encourages the driver to quit
talking likewise, and pay attention to the road hazard.

Blood-curdling screams from the passenger seat do that too...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

And of course we never had any accidents before cell phones. And the
cops are good enough they can use a cell phone,police radio and a
computer while driving 100 plus mph with out the red lights on.

I totally fail to see the big difference between current cell phones
and mobile phones in the past. Along with CB radios, Ham radios,
Business radios, passangers ect. Its just something to focus blame on.

Garry


On 12 Jan 2005 13:53:02 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Mundt says...

After all, if the cops ticketed EVERYONE
they caught using a cell phone while driving, not only would
they have a huge public outcry, ...

This is what's happening in NY state. I suspect that
pretty soon they will start running cell phone stops
just like the seatbelt stops.

That would be fine with me. As a motorbike rider I
view a minivan piloted by a cell-phone equipped
soccer mom about the same as ebola virus or something.

Jim

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...

simply control and another (sorry Mom) Mother law. The government

has deemed itself to be everyones 'Mother' and care for the children...


Respectfully, no.

This issue is not another helmet or seatbelt law thing.

The actions of drivers on public roads affect *all* the other
drivers. A person's car interior is not their own personal
living room, it is travelling down a highway that many
other people are using at the same time.

This the reason that I can vote against helmet or seatbelt
laws, and FOR a law that prohibits drivers from being
distracted by phone conversations.

Those are fundamentally different issues.

The right to chatter on a phone in the car *stops* when my
right to travel safely _starts_.

Jim


But respectfully the issue is the cell phone was listed to be written
down as a suspect in big wrecks. Other elements were not.
That is why they got the bad rep.
Eating and having a baby in the car is often far more dangerous.
Or just being of a certain age group - under 25.
Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Road rage got worse after - oh we got rid of radio phones...
Do all elements of all problems get tabulated ? - No it is like
the Drinking while driving group - down to this % then to this % then......
They were on an agenda - I'm with them, but I feel they went way to far.

Martin


jim rozen wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...


Great. If my boss required me to do something illegal, it'd be a
problem then, wouldn't it. Plenty of stupid laws on the books Jim,
wouldn't you agree? Doesn't mean there's logic behind them.


You don't get it. I *don't* think it's a stupid law.

What I think is stupid is this: folks driving around
and talking on the phone, endangering other road users.
Does your personal use do that? I can't say one way or
the other, and for the purposes of usenet I'm perfectly
willing to admit that you are one of the concientious
ones who takes great pains to not become distracted
and cause accidents.

However that does put you in a one-percenter catagory,
because all the other folks who I see weaving around
on the road and being total jerks invariably have a
phone glued to their ear. So I think the law is a
great idea. I just wish they'd start enforcing the darn
thing.

And yes, I think things *have* gotten worse since the
advent of cell phones. Used to be I would see a driver
per week on the Taconic doing something moronic. Reading
a newspaper, using an eyelash curler. Now it's about once
a day and it's always a cell phone. It's gotten to the
point that I try to alert the phone user to my presence
now right away, before riding near to them. Phone means horn
now.

I think that cell phone use has actually reduced the number
of cases of DWI because most drunks cannot manage to talk
on their phone and start their car at the same time. And
if they do they usually crash in the parking lot before
they make it to a public street.

Jim




--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On 13 Jan 2005 18:31:07 -0800, jim rozen
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

In article , Old Nick says...

In West Oz they are talking about banning _any_ phone talk, hendheld
or not. Phone conversations are being said by some to be more
distracting than talking to the passenger.

Obviously. And the reason is, the person on the other end of the
phone line is not physically at risk during the conversation. If
one is in a car, yammering away, one tends to *stop* when the
car is about to crash. This encourages the driver to quit
talking likewise, and pay attention to the road hazard.

Blood-curdling screams from the passenger seat do that too...

So when we get video phones, it'll be OK? G "I'll just point the
camera forward and you yell if you see anything"

..........oh...we already do......damn! Dinostatus confirmed.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:42:30 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But respectfully the issue is the cell phone was listed to be written
down as a suspect in big wrecks. Other elements were not.
That is why they got the bad rep.

But many people are charged with failing to pay proper attention in
accidents. Sometimes unfairly in my opinion. It seems to me that
talking on a phone in a car is a relatively easy one to see ,and
therefore clamp down on. Any removed cause for stupidity on the raod
is good.

Eating and having a baby in the car is often far more dangerous.

Yep. That would be distracting. It would take a tough constitution as
well, for many reasons.... G

But apart from that "Baby on board Mind in neutral" is my little
motto. G

Or just being of a certain age group - under 25.

Well, heck! That's _easily_ solved. Heinlein had a way. The barrel and
the bung.

True. You are not required to even have a radio to fly. But frequently
when you transmit on Unicom you are not transmitting to anyone specifically
it is just a blind hail. Since you were referring to approach control I
assumed you were talking about rules in controlled airspace. I was thinking
of FAR 135 aircraft and just sort of ignored the other "commercial" traffic.
I really can't imagine uncontrolled airspace that is so congested you have
to worry much about a "turbofan" sucking you up.
I am not a pilot and hate flying, even though I have been a RAD/NAV/COMM
tech for the FAA for 30+ years. I pay a lot more attention to keeping the
electronics in shape than staying current with the FAR's. We operate under
a different set of guidelines on the ground and for me, Unicom transmission
in the blind is required. If you choose not to listen then we could both
very well end up dead. Personally I think it is a real bad idea for the FAA
to not keep the FARs in the field offices, they are on the net but are not
required for us lowly ET's to even read. It would be really wonderful if
there was some communication medium for pilots to talk to the ET's that
maintain the equipment that brings you home but it just don't happen. I
have spent a lot of hours going to the FBO's and trying to get something
going so when a pilot sees something he has a way to report it directly to
us. Telling ATC that the Localizer is acting weird and you are having a
tough time flying the approach does about as much good as writing it on a
postit note and tossing it out the window.

All of which is totally beside the point and I apologize for the OT rant,
but the point is, comparing a pilot and his radio to a freekin "blond" with
a cellphone in traffic just is not a good comparison. (and by blond I mean
a stupid driver)

To the cellphone/driving point, perhaps they should require you to have a
cell phone conversation with some annoying telemarketerere type while you
take your driving test? Can't talk and drive? Take the bus LOL

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:14:28 -0800, "Glenn"
wrote:

Actually it is quite common and required to transmit blind.
It might be reasonably common, but it isn't required... unless IFR
rules prevail....

Uncontrolled
airports use Unicom frequencies and you announce your intentions to the
wide
open spaces incase somebody else has intentions of being where you plan to
go and you just haven't spotted each other.
Problem is... you don't know if they are listening or not.... or even
have their radio on.... or even *have* a radio...

For commercial flights you have two people driving.
You can't assume that, unless two or more crew members are required...
which in many instances they are not. If you mean Part 135 traffic,
that is different.

--

Homepage*
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/

* If you find that you are denied access to my web page, Please respond
here with
your IP address and I will see if I can open up access. I have been forced
to
blackhole large geographic regions outside of North America due to
incessant
spoofing and hacking attacks on my web server. Thanks.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:51:57 GMT, Garry
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

And of course we never had any accidents before cell phones. And the
cops are good enough they can use a cell phone,police radio and a
computer while driving 100 plus mph with out the red lights on.

No they're not. That's a separate issue, that I agree needs dealing
with. Police breaking the law with impunity is bad. But it has nothing
to do with whether Joe average should use a phone in a car.


I totally fail to see the big difference between current cell phones
and mobile phones in the past.

Cell phone, mobile phones. There _is_ no differnce in this case. It's
ths situation.

Along with CB radios, Ham radios,
Business radios, passangers ect.

I have never had a Ham or CB radio in a car on a road.......no! I lie.
I did use a CB once, when trying to find out what was happening from
somebody watch the vehicle. I have had several mobile and cell phones.
I have resisted using them while driving since I had one. many many
people do not. When they do they are often seen driving badly,
entirely because of the phone.

It's a matter of numbers, not type.

Its just something to focus blame on.

It's an obvious form of distraction that can be controlled wihout a
disproportionate crushing of rights. The examples such as passengers
and babies are _possibly_ comparable. But they are _impossible_ to
stop.

Do you agree with drink-driving laws? Why?

There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from people using cells
more and more, in cars and out. That amount of money usually _talks_
to gov'ts. But many gov'ts are taking up the cudgel on this one. What
possible reason would they have to do so unless they had a pretty fair
idea it was dangerous (paranoia aside)?

Old Nick wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:51:57 GMT, Garry
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email
snip

Do you agree with drink-driving laws? Why?

There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from people using cells
more and more, in cars and out. That amount of money usually _talks_
to gov'ts. But many gov'ts are taking up the cudgel on this one. What
possible reason would they have to do so unless they had a pretty fair
idea it was dangerous (paranoia aside)?


Hey I got an idea!.
Why not ban everyone from the road during certain hours except for those
drinking or using cell phones?
That way after about a year the roads would be safe once again for all the
whiney people who think they can dictate how mother nature selects her
victims.

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:28:01 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

Studies have shown that using a cell phone during driving diminshes
one's performance as much as driving under the influence of alcohol.

How about using the squad car radio?

Bingo! Cops use the radio, phone AND a computer while driving. Are
they smarter, brighter, more gifted. I don't believe so.

They have received additional driver training though.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:44:27 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I am particularly amused by this line of argument about making cell
phone use illegal..... while pilots are *required* by law to chat on
the radio... all the while maintaining control in 3-space not
2-space.... in all phases of flight.

The bottom line is that people too dense to be able to divide their
attention shouldn't be driving anyway

The people driving cars do not have to study for a 600 Question
Written. Presumably, in 3space, the worst have been weeded out, and
there is a 500 foot separation minimum between drivers.
Guy at work hates the cellphone talkers...Says there is something
poetic about prying the cellphone out of a dead yuppy's post-crash
mouth.
But it's not just cellphones..Hear a few years ago about the woman who
Darwined into a concrete overpass piling? Was found with an open
magazine pressed onto her by the airbag.
The crap I see on my daily commute...People doing office work,
rummaging through briefcases, touching themselves in various manners,
reading the newspaper, eating.....
Yeah, there's metalworking content allright.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:51:57 GMT, Garry
wrote:

And of course we never had any accidents before cell phones. And the
cops are good enough they can use a cell phone,police radio and a
computer while driving 100 plus mph with out the red lights on.

Usually the fuzz in the passenger seat operates the radio etc.

I totally fail to see the big difference between current cell phones
and mobile phones in the past. Along with CB radios, Ham radios,
Business radios, passangers ect. Its just something to focus blame on.

I have, in my car, my 4WD network (VKS747) / flying doctor /
amateur radio, 144 mHz amateur radio, UHF CB radio and there is a big
difference between them and handheld mobile phones. It is the
separate microphone and fixed loudspeaker with greater volume, so
there is no need to concentrate to try to hear a tinny phone sound
against the car's background noise. I have safely driven thousands
of km, admittedly 90% listening. Both hands on the steering wheel
unless actually transmitting, and if inconvenient to talk due to road
conditions then let the other end talk. I think it contributes to
road safety by keeping the driver alert.
I also have a mobile phone, in the car, it sits in the hands free
cradle and I don't initiate calls, usually only make about 5 per month
anyway.

Garry


On 12 Jan 2005 13:53:02 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Mundt says...

After all, if the cops ticketed EVERYONE
they caught using a cell phone while driving, not only would
they have a huge public outcry, ...

This is what's happening in NY state. I suspect that
pretty soon they will start running cell phone stops
just like the seatbelt stops.

That would be fine with me. As a motorbike rider I
view a minivan piloted by a cell-phone equipped
soccer mom about the same as ebola virus or something.

Jim


Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...

Eating and having a baby in the car is often far more dangerous.

Eating can be bad. Delivering a child in the car while
driving - even worse!!

Or just being of a certain age group - under 25.
Martin

An excellent point. Along with banning cell phone use, NY
state as instituted a graduated licence scheme, where the
number of kids under age (and here I think it *is* 25)
who are unrelated, who can be in a car driven by a young
driver, is restricted.

They finally figured out that one of the biggest predictors
of a wreck is a station wagon with 12 teenagers in it, driven
by somebody who just yesterday got their license!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:36:40 -0600, granpaw
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Hey I got an idea!.
Why not ban everyone from the road during certain hours except for those
drinking or using cell phones?

Now this idea I like.

That way after about a year the roads would be safe once again for all the
whiney people who think they can dictate how mother nature selects her
victims.

I reckn you have walked into a self-generated trap here, though.

Your logic is skewed. You forget that most accidents involve other
vehicles, at least in the city. I want to be able to dictate how _I_
am selected as somebody _else's_ victim!

I reckon your idea has merit, if for the wrong reason. It would make
sure that there was a greater chance of removing only people who
insisted on arrogantly wanting to behave such that there _were_
vitims.

In article , says...


They finally figured out that one of the biggest predictors
of a wreck is a station wagon with 12 teenagers in it, driven
by somebody who just yesterday got their license!


My kids know I'm only half joking when I tell them the effective IQ of a
teenager driving his friends around is equal to his actual IQ divided by
the number of kids in the car. My youngest is at an age where his
friends are just beginning to get their licenses. He's prohibited, under
penalty of being grounded til he's 25, from riding with anyone who
hasn't had their license for a year.

Ned Simmons

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:32:47 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:51:57 GMT, Garry
wrote:

And of course we never had any accidents before cell phones. And the
cops are good enough they can use a cell phone,police radio and a
computer while driving 100 plus mph with out the red lights on.

Usually the fuzz in the passenger seat operates the radio etc.

Usually if I see two cops I see two cars. I rarely see two highway
patrol officers in one car.



Garry



I totally fail to see the big difference between current cell phones
and mobile phones in the past. Along with CB radios, Ham radios,
Business radios, passangers ect. Its just something to focus blame on.

I have, in my car, my 4WD network (VKS747) / flying doctor /
amateur radio, 144 mHz amateur radio, UHF CB radio and there is a big
difference between them and handheld mobile phones. It is the
separate microphone and fixed loudspeaker with greater volume, so
there is no need to concentrate to try to hear a tinny phone sound
against the car's background noise. I have safely driven thousands
of km, admittedly 90% listening. Both hands on the steering wheel
unless actually transmitting, and if inconvenient to talk due to road
conditions then let the other end talk. I think it contributes to
road safety by keeping the driver alert.
I also have a mobile phone, in the car, it sits in the hands free
cradle and I don't initiate calls, usually only make about 5 per month
anyway.

Garry


On 12 Jan 2005 13:53:02 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Mundt says...

After all, if the cops ticketed EVERYONE
they caught using a cell phone while driving, not only would
they have a huge public outcry, ...

This is what's happening in NY state. I suspect that
pretty soon they will start running cell phone stops
just like the seatbelt stops.

That would be fine with me. As a motorbike rider I
view a minivan piloted by a cell-phone equipped
soccer mom about the same as ebola virus or something.

Jim


Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

In article ,
"John Smith" wrote:

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:28:01 -0500, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

Studies have shown that using a cell phone during driving diminshes
one's performance as much as driving under the influence of alcohol.

How about using the squad car radio?

Bingo! Cops use the radio, phone AND a computer while driving. Are
they smarter, brighter, more gifted. I don't believe so.

They have received additional driver training though.

They recieve additional pistol training too, but my wife can outshoot at
least 95% of the cops and she's not that good either.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jan 2005 17:38:49 -0800, jim rozen
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But have they got around to DVDs yet? We have vehicles being sold with
_dash_ mount_ DfVDs as a standard gimmick! Nothing said. You'd think
the gerks selling the stuff would think, and the govmnt would learn.

Heh. Around here you are too late my friend. NY has already
made using a hand-held phone while driving, a ticketable
offence. Next, it will be using any phone at all while
behind the wheel.

I think folks should be allowed to talk on the phone
while driving. As long as the driver's seat is in front
of the front bumper.

hehe!


ANY video display located in the drivers line of vision has been illegal
for a long time. BUT the ricers don't care. Same with illegal
tint,lights and exhaust. The problem is that the Police don't hit enough
of them hard enough to make it stick.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:44:39 -0500, "Steve W."
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


ANY video display located in the drivers line of vision has been illegal
for a long time. BUT the ricers don't care.

I assume you are feferring to Asians? Careful. However, in Oz it is
Australians of the WASP persuasion that are buying and using them. I
do not know if they are illegal. But they are sold. If they are
illegal they should not be sold. If the car makers had any brains,
they would not put them in cars in Oz, for the sake of their image.

Same with illegal
tint,lights and exhaust. The problem is that the Police don't hit enough
of them hard enough to make it stick.

Again. These are sold _with the car_. That's where it should hit.
ACtually we have a pretty tough stance on the the other bits here.
They take your car away from you for a while if you are naughty. They
then tell you fix this. You take it back, then that, then the other
etc. G.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:07:54 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

I think the whole thing came on when the insurance industry had the police
and highway types itemize on-cell or not - with belt or not.....
for the stats and then that changed the whole thing.

The person might be putting on lipstick, brushing hair, driving and eating while
using the cell phone. I have seen people brush out rolled up hair and others
reading newspapers. Then there is the carpool issues.

It is simply control and another (sorry Mom) Mother law. The government
has deemed itself to be everyones 'Mother' and care for the children...

Martin

Spending much of my driving time in So. Cal traffic, Im fascinated by
the numbers of people who drive while reading books, newspapers,
reports etc. Often at the same time as discussing the report on a cell
phone.

Ive seen just about every human activity that can be accomplished in a
motor vehicle, done on California hiways, upto and including guitar
playing. (the sex play..thats another issue G)

I have a hard wired handsfree cell phone system in my truck. Right
above the CB radio with its hand held microphone.
All of which get used daily.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:25:45 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

Who in the hell needs 1,000 minutes
of talk time a month besides a telemarketer or a real estate agent, or
businessman? That's 16.6 HOURS a month. If you have to talk that much, you
need a shrink.

Or you have a business that is very communications dependant. Like
mine.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On 13 Jan 2005 17:06:35 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


But a cell phone seems to be an instant "square root and invert" function.

In your opinion. Maybe you don't notice all the good drivers with
cellphones because, ahem, they're _good drivers_.


Id have to agree with Dave. Considering the sheer numbers of cell
phones in use on the highway that are actually in use at a single
instance, if it were "Da Evil Cellphone", there would be nothing but
miles and miles of carnage. Those that do get into an accident are the
rare exceptions, those I see driving dangerously, tailgateing and so
forth while on the phone match the same type doing the same thing
distracted by other activitites. Blond soccer moms in large SUVs or
overpainted teenie bobbers in Honda Civics being the usual offenders.

Yesterday I was shadowed by 3 young girls in such a car, all babbling
back and forth at each other, eyes off the road for long periods of
time and so forth. Weaving into my lane...the usual. To the point I
wrote a rather pithy message on the back of a service report in large
Magic Marker, beeped my horn and held it up so they could see it.


"Shut up and drive, Bitch!"

Seemed to catch their attention for some reason. Of course it was
accompanied by my "Pyscho Death Stare"....

I suspect the instant adrenalin rush they got made them a bit more
alert for a few miles anyways.

No cellphones were in use.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On 12 Jan 2005 22:28:27 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:24:15 -0800, Sunworshipper wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005 21:34:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:23:10 -0800, Sunworshipper wrote:

The best one I saw was a cop that drove between a car spun around
backwards with front end damage and in the middle lane and an RV into
a light pole with half the rear end ripped off. He kept on going under
the speed limit thinking of doughnuts !
This all reminds me that I need to redo the limo black tint on my
truck so some candy ass doesn't drop a dime on me.

Wow. It's _like_ English, but without the whole "meaning" thing.

Sun shines, people forget.

Yup.

Now what ? Did I leave something important out that you need? Maybe a
sentence _like_ humans paying attention? Ever run a machine and talk
on the phone?

"redo the limo black tint" "drop a dime", the whole cop/donut thing...
Mindless/meaningless (one might say, ahem, 'trollish') gibberish.

What he was saying was quite clear to me. Shrug. But then, I suspect
its regional.

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:50:31 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 13 Jan 2005 17:06:35 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


But a cell phone seems to be an instant "square root and invert" function.

In your opinion. Maybe you don't notice all the good drivers with
cellphones because, ahem, they're _good drivers_.


Id have to agree with Dave. Considering the sheer numbers of cell
phones in use on the highway that are actually in use at a single
instance, if it were "Da Evil Cellphone", there would be nothing but
miles and miles of carnage. Those that do get into an accident are the
rare exceptions, those I see driving dangerously, tailgateing and so
forth while on the phone match the same type doing the same thing
distracted by other activitites. Blond soccer moms in large SUVs or
overpainted teenie bobbers in Honda Civics being the usual offenders.

It ain't "Da Evil Cell phone" it's the "No paying attention to the
primary mission: driving. Adjusting the radio, looking for the CD/tape,
figuring out what to have for dinner, calculating how much after taxes
you'd have if you won the lottery and split it seven ways ... and
"conversing" As you point out below:

Yesterday I was shadowed by 3 young girls in such a car, all babbling
back and forth at each other, eyes off the road for long periods of
time and so forth. Weaving into my lane...the usual. To the point I
wrote a rather pithy message on the back of a service report in large
Magic Marker, beeped my horn and held it up so they could see it.

My father passed on to me the Insurance Company detail that preachers
tended to be bad risks. "Often too heavenly minded to pay attention to
earthly concerns."
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:44:39 -0500, "Steve W."
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


ANY video display located in the drivers line of vision has been illegal
for a long time. BUT the ricers don't care.

I assume you are feferring to Asians? Careful. However, in Oz it is
Australians of the WASP persuasion that are buying and using them. I
do not know if they are illegal. But they are sold. If they are
illegal they should not be sold. If the car makers had any brains,
they would not put them in cars in Oz, for the sake of their image.

Nick
Down here in Victoria the you can have a television screen in the car but it
must be wired in such a way that it shots off if the car is moving.
tom





Same with illegal
tint,lights and exhaust. The problem is that the Police don't hit enough
of them hard enough to make it stick.

Again. These are sold _with the car_. That's where it should hit.
ACtually we have a pretty tough stance on the the other bits here.
They take your car away from you for a while if you are naughty. They
then tell you fix this. You take it back, then that, then the other
etc. G.

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:44:39 -0500, "Steve W."
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


ANY video display located in the drivers line of vision has been
illegal
for a long time. BUT the ricers don't care.

I assume you are feferring to Asians? Careful. However, in Oz it is
Australians of the WASP persuasion that are buying and using them. I
do not know if they are illegal. But they are sold. If they are
illegal they should not be sold. If the car makers had any brains,
they would not put them in cars in Oz, for the sake of their image.

Same with illegal
tint,lights and exhaust. The problem is that the Police don't hit
enough
of them hard enough to make it stick.

Again. These are sold _with the car_. That's where it should hit.
ACtually we have a pretty tough stance on the the other bits here.
They take your car away from you for a while if you are naughty. They
then tell you fix this. You take it back, then that, then the other
etc. G.


Being sold with the car doesn't make them any less illegal. If they are
wires in so they will not function when the vehicle is in motion they
are technically legal. I know in NY they won't specifically pull you
over for cell use while driving UNLESS your creating a hazard or have
some other violation. But I still hand the phone to a passenger or let
the voicemail get it, and I have a hands free device. Just not worth a
possible ticket, accident, death, for a phone call.


"RICERS" are ANYONE who modifies an auto (usually Honda, Hyundai, or
Toyota) with crap that serves no useful purpose. Things like "Fart Can"
exhaust tips (6" chrome that makes that 4 banger sound like a ****ed off
bumblebee in a can) Window tinting so dark you have to have the lights
on inside to see. Stickers like RS6 or Supercharged on a plain jane four
cylinder. Car dropped to the point that hitting a mouse causes damage.
Running 20 inch rims with rubber band tires and being very afraid of
bumps or potholes. Neon lighting under the vehicle. Interior items like
shift light tach on an automatic, Lighted dash trim, LED lighted washer
nozzles Most of them also seem to listen to "music*" that you can hear
the bass line in LONG before the car shows up. And they also seem to
have a penchant for wearing pants three sizes to large hanging halfway
down.
(side note: The pants thing has been researched and discovered to have
originated in prisons on the West Coast of the US. Seems it is a sign to
other male inmates that you are willing to be the "catcher" during
sexual activities between male inmates. It was brought out of the
prisons by the inmates as the same sign to others)

"music*"= very loose definition of what usually comes out of those
vehicles. Most of it seems to be drummers and people being tortured till
they scream every obscenity they can.

In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:06:07 -0500
Steve W. wrote:

(side note: The pants thing has been researched and discovered to have
originated in prisons on the West Coast of the US. Seems it is a sign to
other male inmates that you are willing to be the "catcher" during
sexual activities between male inmates. It was brought out of the
prisons by the inmates as the same sign to others)

Seems very unlikely to me, given the stigma associated with bottoming in
prisons where it's a power play. No one is "willing" to bottom, they
have to because they are lower on the pecking order. If they do
volunteer, it's for protection and payoff, so they'll only do it for
those who can offer that, not to every bod who comes along.

Ahh.. hating the kid's fashions. Anyone over 40 noticed their testicles
being deformed by those tight jeans they wore as a teenager then?

Zebee

In article , Steve W. wrote:

the bass line in LONG before the car shows up. And they also seem to
have a penchant for wearing pants three sizes to large hanging halfway
down.

One of those priceless moments that will stick with me for the rest of my
life...

I was on my way to work one summer morning and passed a moving truck outside
an apartment. There were two young men moving a large (I mean HUGE)
television set out of the truck. The one I could see has a pair of those
oversized pants. As he was making his way to the back of the truck,
his pants began to slip. With each step his pants got lower and lower until
as he reached the top of the ramp they collapsed into a heap around his
ankles. So now etched into my memory is this guy holding a TV worth more
than three months rent for the place he is moving into with his pants around
his ankles and his polka dot boxers (I am not making this up!) swaying in the
breeze standing there with no where to put the TV and no way to pull up his
pants. Another sensless victim of fashion.

(side note: The pants thing has been researched and discovered to have
originated in prisons on the West Coast of the US. Seems it is a sign to
other male inmates that you are willing to be the "catcher" during
sexual activities between male inmates. It was brought out of the
prisons by the inmates as the same sign to others)


I wonder if the people wearing them like this know what they are
advertising? Probably not.

-- Joe

--
Joseph M. Krzeszewski Mechanical Engineering and stuff
Jack of All Trades, Master of None... Yet

What would be really cool is on and off windshield tint. I've tried to
find it , I know they make it for buildings. Can it be cut? If they
have to see in isn't that profiling?


Sun shines, people forget.

Found it again its called Electrochromic glazing. Looks like there
are companies that will make it for ya now. Last time I couldn't find
any info. on how to get some. Now I'll have to get a '47 Chevy truck
again , flat windows all around. That will be fun when pulled over for
having the windshield tinted and the cop walks up to see the front
glass clear. )

I can't come up with any reason that others should be able to see
what's going on inside the vehicle. But then I think paparazzi should
have permission to take someone's picture and sell it.

There was one site on the lines of that secretary in the movie ahhh
Total Recall when she wands her finger nails a different color.