 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Jan 2005 15:12:26 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
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. Close, but wrong. Driving and causing a _problem_ should be the punishable offense, not driving and not causing a problem. The state legislature has decided that the correlation between poor driving and cell phone use is large enough to link the two, legally speaking. The state legislature of California has decided that various chemicals cause cancer as well, but that doesn't mean they do; it just means that a bunch of lobbyists convinced a bunch of lawyers (the legislature) that their presentation was good enough to be right. I too wish that poor driving, and not for example speed, were the triggering event for a ticket. Well, speed by itself isn't a problem, just as using a cellphone by itself isn't a problem. It's unsafe use of either that is the problem, and which should be the ticketable offense. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
...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. Close, but wrong. Actually, not wrong. Read the NY statute. Use a hand held phone while driving in NY, you can get a ticket. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Jan 2005 12:08:22 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... ...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. Close, but wrong. Actually, not wrong. Read the NY statute. Yes, Jim, I understand that the NY statute is stupid. Thank you for making the point over and over and over. My point, which by now you must intentionally be missing, is that it's another example of a stupid law. The thing which should be punished is causing a problem while driving, not (insert random reasons here including using a cellphone) but not causing a problem, while driving.] Use a hand held phone while driving in NY, you can get a ticket. And try to buy certain solvents in California, and you can't, because the lawmakers say they cause cancer. They don't just cause cancer in California (if at all), that's just a law that a bunch of expert witnesses convinced a bunch of lawmakers to pass. Doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Unless you're stipulating that by definition, lawmakers are infallable? |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, Jim, I understand that the NY statute is stupid.
The point is: Some people think its stupid law. Some people think its a good law. And nobody is going to change thier mind based on this thread! Personally I see often see people that are distracted by using their cell phone in the car. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
...The thing which should be punished is causing a problem while driving,... Cops are not that smart, nor do they have enough time to do this. Passing a law that says 'cops should ticket poor drivers' is a non-starter. Becuase it does not specify what is to be ticketable. Is the headlight out, or not? Is the speed limit being broken, or not? Did the car stop at the stop sign, or not? Does the car have a license plate or not? All yes or no questions. Easy for a police officer to determine, no real judgement needed. If the cops around here gave out tickets based on jerkwad driving, they'd run out of ticket pads. Mind you that wouldn't be a bad thing. But 95% of those tickets would be tossed out in court. A BIG waste of time overall. The only time a cop stops somebody for being a jerkwad driver around here, is if the poor sod acts like a jerkwad towards an unmarked cop car. This happens occasinally and is quite a hoot to see. Basically I am agreeing with your thesis in principle. But it's way too far idealistic to ever work. So in ny the realization is that most folks driving like jerkwads are also yakking on the phone. So phone use becomes illegal. Too bad. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Jan 2005 15:17:08 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... ...The thing which should be punished is causing a problem while driving,... Cops are not that smart, nor do they have enough time to do this. It's a pretty easy thing to test, isn't it? Either they're missing seeing signals, or they're not. Either they're following too closeley, or they're not. Either they're causing an accident, or they're not. Either they're making unsafe lane changes, or they're not. These are all existing laws that define and punish behavior that causes problems while driving. Passing a law that says 'cops should ticket poor drivers' is a non-starter. Becuase it does not specify what is to be ticketable. See above. Is the headlight out, or not? Is the speed limit being broken, or not? Did the car stop at the stop sign, or not? Does the car have a license plate or not? Has the driver performed an unsafe act, or not? Having a cellphone isn't an unsafe act, but doing the above things are. Use a law similar to the seatbelt one if you want - if you do something above _and_ are using a cellphone at the time, add on if you want. But there is no reason to punish someone usign a cellphone who isn't doing any of the above type of things; they're not causing you or anyone else any problem. All yes or no questions. Easy for a police officer to determine, no real judgement needed. You underestimate cops, but yeah, the above covers it. If the cops around here gave out tickets based on jerkwad driving, they'd run out of ticket pads. Mind you that wouldn't be a bad thing. But 95% of those tickets would be tossed out in court. A BIG waste of time overall. So better to punish me, doing nothing wrong, for having a conversation with someone and _not_ driving like a "jerkwad"? The mind boggles at the thought process that is needed to get that sort of a conclusion. Basically I am agreeing with your thesis in principle. But it's way too far idealistic to ever work. So in ny the realization is that most folks driving like jerkwads are also yakking on the phone. If you can quantify "driving like jerkwads", which I think we both have, and you can make those behaviors illegal (which I think they are), then punishing a safe driver with a cellphone is just another example of a stupid law punishing the wrong people. It's exactly the same thinking that brings us laws that disarm honest people so they can't defend themselves against armed criminals. Dave Hinz |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
If the cops around here gave out tickets based on jerkwad driving, they'd run out of ticket pads. Mind you that wouldn't be a bad thing. But 95% of those tickets would be tossed out in court. A BIG waste of time overall. So better to punish me, doing nothing wrong, for having a conversation with someone and _not_ driving like a "jerkwad"? The mind boggles at the thought process that is needed to get that sort of a conclusion. You're blaming the messenger. A common failing. I'm not saying I approve of that theory of traffic law enforcement. I'm saying that 90 percent of the cops on the road act according to those rules. Like it or not, you have have to share the road with those folks and their rules govern, not an idealistic view of 'how it should be,' or 'everyone should drive well, like me.' Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jan 2005 08:05:43 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... If the cops around here gave out tickets based on jerkwad driving, they'd run out of ticket pads. Mind you that wouldn't be a bad thing. But 95% of those tickets would be tossed out in court. A BIG waste of time overall. So better to punish me, doing nothing wrong, for having a conversation with someone and _not_ driving like a "jerkwad"? The mind boggles at the thought process that is needed to get that sort of a conclusion. You're blaming the messenger. A common failing. I'm not saying I approve of that theory of traffic law enforcement. I'm saying that 90 percent of the cops on the road act according to those rules. Like it or not, you have have to share the road with those folks and their rules govern, not an idealistic view of 'how it should be,' or 'everyone should drive well, like me.' If you say so. I thought you were defending the law and disagreeing with my statement that it's stupid. Maybe I misread you and if so I apologize. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe the solution is to include "driving with a cellphone" as part of
the driving test. It would be a simple matter to include a test segment where during parallel parking the driver would have to answer a number of questions by phone as the driving instructor further distracted them with babble while the latest excuse for music was blaring from the radio. If you did not complete all the tasks within a specified time period you would fail the test and not receive your license. This would be much better for all concerned than to fail the real test and lose your life and take me with you. TMT |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools says... Maybe the solution is to include "driving with a cellphone" as part of the driving test. It would be a simple matter to include a test segment where during parallel parking the driver would have to answer a number of questions by phone as the driving instructor further distracted them with babble while the latest excuse for music was blaring from the radio. If you did not complete all the tasks within a specified time period you would fail the test and not receive your license. This would be much better for all concerned than to fail the real test and lose your life and take me with you. There speaks a wise man. I strongly believe that simulators are soon going to start taking a big place in driver training. And I'm not talking about those old steering wheel/brake pedal things with a red and green light on the dash. I mean a real simulator, with force feedback, distractions, visibility degradation, and so on. Put the kid in a 'car' with a fogged up windshield, wipers that don't work, an icy street, and an kid that runs out in front.... Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
If you say so. I thought you were defending the law and disagreeing with my statement that it's stupid. Maybe I misread you and if so I apologize. To be quite fair we still disagree about cell phone use. I think the NY law is a good thing. But most policing (at least traffic enforcement, around here) is done on a 'bright line rule' approach. They don't ticket poor drivers, because that's too complicated. I wish they would. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jan 2005 10:03:51 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... If you say so. I thought you were defending the law and disagreeing with my statement that it's stupid. Maybe I misread you and if so I apologize. To be quite fair we still disagree about cell phone use. I think the NY law is a good thing. Man, I'm having a hard time keeping you in sight. Before, it was "don't shoot the messenger", now it's back to "I agree with the law". But most policing (at least traffic enforcement, around here) is done on a 'bright line rule' approach. They don't ticket poor drivers, because that's too complicated. I wish they would. So instead of pushing for that, you punish _all_ drivers who use cellphones, instead of the bad drivers. Well, they're all in cars, so at least they have something in common, I guess. Me, I think we should make it illegal to drive if you're wearing jeans. After all, I've seen a lot of bad drivers, and I've seen alot of people wearing jeans, so it's about as logical as the cellphone/bad driving law you support. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
So instead of pushing for that, you punish _all_ drivers who use cellphones, instead of the bad drivers. Well, they're all in cars, so at least they have something in common, I guess. Me, I think we should make it illegal to drive if you're wearing jeans. Go ahead and knock yourself out on that. If you can convince the lawmakers that you have a reasonable position you might prevail. The cell phone folks did, in *spite* of the telecommunications lobby - which threw a fair bit of weight behind snafuing the law as it was being passed. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jan 2005 11:30:22 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... So instead of pushing for that, you punish _all_ drivers who use cellphones, instead of the bad drivers. Well, they're all in cars, so at least they have something in common, I guess. Me, I think we should make it illegal to drive if you're wearing jeans. Go ahead and knock yourself out on that. If you can convince the lawmakers that you have a reasonable position you might prevail. Yeah, great. We have lawmakers who punish people who aren't causing problems, instead of people who are causing problems. Hardly unique, just bull**** nonetheless. The cell phone folks did, in *spite* of the telecommunications lobby - which threw a fair bit of weight behind snafuing the law as it was being passed. Hence it's an example of a bad law. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
The group might be interested in reading this article....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._young_drivers Talking on a cell phone makes you drive like a retiree - even if you're only a teen, a new study shows. A report from the University of Utah says when motorists between 18 and 25 talk on cell phones, they drive like elderly people - moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents. "If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging." And it doesn't matter whether the phone is hand-held or handsfree, he said. Any activity requiring a driver to "actively be part of a conversation" likely will impair driving abilities, Strayer said. In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003. Their new study appears in this winter's issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Strayer said they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who were not using a cell phone. In the simulator, each participant drove four 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trip and driving without talking the other half. Only handsfree phones - considered safer - were used. The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. The numbers, which come down to milliseconds, might not seem like much, but it could be the difference to stopping in time to avoid hitting a child in the street, Strayer said. The new research questions the effectiveness of cell phone usage laws in states such as New York and New Jersey, which only ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. It's not so much the handling of a phone, Strayer said, but the fact that having a conversation is a mental process that can drain concentration. The only silver lining to the new research is that elderly drivers using a cell phone aren't any more of a hazard to themselves and others than young drivers. Previous research suggested older drivers may face what Strayer described as a "triple whammy." "We thought they would be really messed up because not only are they slower overall due to age, there's also a difficulty dividing attention," Strayer said. But the study found that more experience and a tendency to take fewer risks helped negate any additional danger. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message oups.com... The group might be interested in reading this article.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._young_drivers Talking on a cell phone makes you drive like a retiree - even if you're only a teen, a new study shows. A report from the University of Utah says when motorists between 18 and 25 talk on cell phones, they drive like elderly people - moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents. more stuff snipped Thank you. I reported this once before, but couldn't cite the URL to the article. I was severely chastized, and nearly beaten for suggesting such a study took place, and was challenged by some moron to produce the URL. I am aging, but still have enough active brain cells left to retain something I read. I just don't have enough cells to categorize everything and have instant recall. In the article I recall, it compares cell phone addicted drivers to drunks, but may also have comparisons to the elderly. I just think it is fairer to compare them to drunks than to us old farts. I see more young people with a cell in their ear while driving than older drivers. Steve |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Too_Many_Tools wrote: The group might be interested in reading this article.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._young_drivers And it doesn't matter whether the phone is hand-held or handsfree, he said. Any activity requiring a driver to "actively be part of a conversation" likely will impair driving abilities, Strayer said. In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003. [etc] Does that imply that a driver carrying on a conversation with a passenger is impaired? I find that I can talk to anyone who is present with no difficulty, but when on the phone, I have trouble keeping the conversation coherent (this is at home; I don't have, or want, a cell phone). When a second person interrupts me during a person-person conversation, I have no problem, but when a phone conversation is interrupted (either at my end or the other end), it is extremely distracting. Of course, I've seen some drivers carrying on very animated conversations with a passenger, involving lots of hand motions, etc. that probably are a hazard... I hate restrictive laws, but driving on public roads is a potentially dangerous task, and I want all drivers to concentrate on *getting to their destination safely*. "Hang up and drive or pull over and talk." Joe |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy to be of help.
This study is one of many that have been done on this subject. They all arrive at the same conclusion...don't use a cell phone and drive at the same time. It is just a matter of time before cell phone bans become more widespread. It cannot come too soon for me. TMT |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:11:57 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote: ,; ,;"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message egroups.com... ,; The group might be interested in reading this article.... ,; ,; http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._young_drivers ,; ,; ,; Talking on a cell phone makes you drive like a retiree - even if ,; you're only a teen, a new study shows. A report from the University of ,; Utah says when motorists between 18 and 25 talk on cell phones, they ,; drive like elderly people - moving and reacting more slowly and ,; increasing their risk of accidents. ,; ,;more stuff snipped ,; ,;Thank you. I reported this once before, but couldn't cite the URL to the ,;article. I was severely chastized, and nearly beaten for suggesting such a ,;study took place, and was challenged by some moron to produce the URL. I am ,;aging, but still have enough active brain cells left to retain something I ,;read. I just don't have enough cells to categorize everything and have ,;instant recall. In the article I recall, it compares cell phone addicted ,;drivers to drunks, but may also have comparisons to the elderly. I just ,;think it is fairer to compare them to drunks than to us old farts. I see ,;more young people with a cell in their ear while driving than older drivers. More info about that work. WSJ Thursday Feb 3, 2005 page D5. Title of article is "Phone Use Slows Driver Reaction" It compares cell phone use while driving to aged drivers and to drunk drivers. (Your aging memory still has a few cells functioning) Interesting was that apparently it made no difference if the phone was hand held or not. Guess that makes sense as the point is that talking on the phone is a distraction. Of course some peoplw can't speak at all if they can't wave their hands. ;-) The original work as reported in the WSJ appeared in this winter's issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society. ************ Profiles in Driver Distraction: Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Younger and Older Drivers, David L. Strayer and Frank A. Drews, 640 (Special Section) ************* This URL will take you to the index where the above reference is located. I am not sure if you can find the entire article online. http://www.hfes.org/Publications/TOC/2004index.html |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Unknown" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:11:57 -0800, "SteveB" wrote: ,; ,;"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message legroups.com... ,; The group might be interested in reading this article.... ,; ,; http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._young_drivers ,; ,; ,; Talking on a cell phone makes you drive like a retiree - even if ,; you're only a teen, a new study shows. A report from the University of ,; Utah says when motorists between 18 and 25 talk on cell phones, they ,; drive like elderly people - moving and reacting more slowly and ,; increasing their risk of accidents. ,; ,;more stuff snipped ,; ,;Thank you. I reported this once before, but couldn't cite the URL to the ,;article. I was severely chastized, and nearly beaten for suggesting such a ,;study took place, and was challenged by some moron to produce the URL. I am ,;aging, but still have enough active brain cells left to retain something I ,;read. I just don't have enough cells to categorize everything and have ,;instant recall. In the article I recall, it compares cell phone addicted ,;drivers to drunks, but may also have comparisons to the elderly. I just ,;think it is fairer to compare them to drunks than to us old farts. I see ,;more young people with a cell in their ear while driving than older drivers. More info about that work. WSJ Thursday Feb 3, 2005 page D5. Title of article is "Phone Use Slows Driver Reaction" It compares cell phone use while driving to aged drivers and to drunk drivers. (Your aging memory still has a few cells functioning) Interesting was that apparently it made no difference if the phone was hand held or not. Guess that makes sense as the point is that talking on the phone is a distraction. Of course some peoplw can't speak at all if they can't wave their hands. ;-) The original work as reported in the WSJ appeared in this winter's issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society. ************ Profiles in Driver Distraction: Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Younger and Older Drivers, David L. Strayer and Frank A. Drews, 640 (Special Section) ************* This URL will take you to the index where the above reference is located. I am not sure if you can find the entire article online. http://www.hfes.org/Publications/TOC/2004index.html Thanks for the mountain of information. Steve |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe wrote:
[ snip ] I hate restrictive laws, but driving on public roads is a potentially dangerous task, and I want all drivers to concentrate on *getting to their destination safely*. "Hang up and drive or pull over and talk." Indeed. Why isn't the blanket "failure to devote full time and attention" to driving sufficient? Micro-legislating breeds scofflaws. -jc- |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Chase" wrote in message . .. Joe wrote: [ snip ] I hate restrictive laws, but driving on public roads is a potentially dangerous task, and I want all drivers to concentrate on *getting to their destination safely*. "Hang up and drive or pull over and talk." Indeed. Why isn't the blanket "failure to devote full time and attention" to driving sufficient? Micro-legislating breeds scofflaws. -jc- I, personally, could live with enforcement so that such things as putting on makeup, eating, drinking, having a poodle in your lap, reading, slapping the kids, adjusting the radio, and a host of other things would draw a ticket immediately. I firmly believe that someone has been killed by a driver doing one of these things. And probably hundreds more really stupid things. Steve |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forgive me for coming in so late. I have been out of town on business
and was on my cell phone while driving so, I couldn't reply sooner. I am a cell phone user and a pilot. What I am about to state is my opinion. I do not wish to impose my views on anyone else. Nor will I argue the merits of my opinion over anyone else's opinion. That is the nice thing about this country. We have freedom to express our opinions if, LOL we are willing to accept the consequences. Seriously, I have read about 2/3 of the replies. So if I repeat something, I apologize. I drive or up until recently flew myself about 40,000 a year on business. That cell phone is a tool. To ask me to pull over while talking would mean that I never get anywhere. I have and use almost 1250 cell phone minutes a month. Yes, it is more dangerous to use a cell phone while driving than to not use one. So are the many activities that have been mentioned by one person or another. That is why we pay a thousand dollars or more for auto insurance each year. It covers all the stupid things people do while driving that lead to accidents. I live in the south and travel the southwest. People in these states are not as readily to allow (what I view as) excessive government intrusions into their daily lives as the majority of people who live in the northeastern states. So, I don't expect to see cell phone bans in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc anytime soon. I think the density of people living in an area has a lot to do with the view of cell phone usage. The northeast and west coast areas have a greater number of people living in a given area. The odds are that the more people you have the more stupid thing that will be done. So, you find laws, such as in New York that ban cell phone usage while driving. If I am driving in New York and a business call come in. I will answer it. If I get a ticket, I will pay it and move on. I would consider it the cost of doing business. One comment on flying; radio usage in airplanes is short and to the point. Pilots do not B.S. on the radio. Someone mentioned flying within six feet of each other. I have done numerous formation takeoffs in F-4s. We mostly used hand and head signals. The radio was reserved for emergencies. The same with formation flying. Lead would give his wingmen hand signals while in tight formation. The only radio talk was a short, "two", "three", etc in acknowledgment of frequency changes. Lead did all the communication with the ground controllers. I know this goes against cell phone usage in a car. I never said it was the safest thing to do. I only view the risks vs. rewards as acceptable in my favor. In thirty-five years of driving, I have two only minor accidents. Neither of them evolved cell phone usage. John |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jmiguez" wrote in message
oups.com... I know this goes against cell phone usage in a car. I never said it was the safest thing to do. I only view the risks vs. rewards as acceptable in my favor. How about the "risks vs. rewards" for the people you might hit? -- Ed Huntress |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
I never hit anyone Ed!
 |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com, jmiguez
says... I think the density of people living in an area has a lot to do with the view of cell phone usage. The northeast and west coast areas have a greater number of people living in a given area. The odds are that the more people you have the more stupid thing that will be done. So, you find laws, such as in New York that ban cell phone usage while driving. If I am driving in New York and a business call come in. I will answer it. If I get a ticket, I will pay it and move on. I would consider it the cost of doing business. Remember though that the NY state law is specific to *hand-held* cell phones. If you have a headset and are not seen fiddling with dialing numbers, you will not be ticketed. I would love to see a total ban on phone use while driving - but because the powers that be deem hand-held to be more dangerous than hands-free, I guess that's better than nothing. When I see folks blabbering on the phone in a nearby car, I tend to give them a wake-up call via airhorn - just to let them know they're sharing the road with me. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... I never hit anyone Ed! Ok so far, but since you've acknowledged that there's a risk involved, the risk, one presumes, applies to the person or vehicle you might hit if that risk becomes a reality. The argument turns out to be a weak one for using cell phones while driving, and an increasingly strong one against it. I do it (although much less than I used to, since I've thought about the consequences), and there's no doubt that it's a great convenience and even a productivity-enhancer for many people. There's also little doubt that it's a distraction to driving and that any similar distraction, without a compensating benefit, would not be tolerated. I watched a guy who was animated in a phone conversation turn left directly into a stream of oncoming traffic a few months ago. His mind was elsewhere; on the other end of that phone conversation, no doubt. And I was driven off the road (the Garden State Parkway) around four years ago by a woman in an SUV who was talking and waving her elbow up and down while she swerved into my lane. No question, cell phones distract attention from the road and from circumstances. The recent research that shows that young adults drive like very old adults (ones of declining competence) when they're on a cell phone is just one example. It's a dilemma, and focusing only on your *own* risks and rewards misses the point of the safety issue: that your driving risk, most of the time, translates into someone else's driving risk. You take the risk, and they take the consequences. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
I, personally, could live with enforcement so that such things as putting on
makeup, eating, drinking, having a poodle in your lap, reading, slapping the kids, adjusting the radio, and a host of other things would draw a ticket immediately. I firmly believe that someone has been killed by a driver doing one of these things. And probably hundreds more really stupid things. I have personally seen an accident caused by a woman putting on makeup at 65MPH on a 6 lane interstate highway. I was in a police car that responded to an accident where the drive stopped in the middle of a paved highway to displine her kid in the back seat. To top it off there were numerous driveways on the road where she could have savely stopped. Saving everybody lots of fustration. Just a day or two ago I saw a woman in a ford explorer rear end a small car. I would venture to guess she was distracted; I have personally seen a woman chasing a small dog on a 6 lane expressway. I can only venture to guess that the dog jumped out the window in the slow moving traffic. My conclusion; People do stupid things everyday. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:46:31 GMT, John Chase wrote:
Joe wrote: [ snip ] I hate restrictive laws, but driving on public roads is a potentially dangerous task, and I want all drivers to concentrate on *getting to their destination safely*. "Hang up and drive or pull over and talk." Indeed. Why isn't the blanket "failure to devote full time and attention" to driving sufficient? Micro-legislating breeds scofflaws. Exactly. Not all cellphone users are unsafe drivers. Not all unsafe drivers are cellphone users. But all unsafe drivers are unsafe drivers, so punish unsafe driving. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Feb 2005 06:57:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: I would love to see a total ban on phone use while driving - but because the powers that be deem hand-held to be more dangerous than hands-free, I guess that's better than nothing. Then you are also going to have to ban the use of CB radio. I DONT want to be the one to tell several million truck drivers that they have to pull over before using the CB. Having a couple ****ed off truckers pull a "squeeze play" on you will most certainly ruin your day. Gunner " We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible." |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
Then you are also going to have to ban the use of CB radio. I DONT want to be the one to tell several million truck drivers that they have to pull over before using the CB. I don't think it's fair to lump truck drivers in with the 'oh boy am I so busy, my life's so important' cell phone folks. Besides, teh cops can't see up into those rigs. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
drivers are cellphone users. But all unsafe drivers are unsafe drivers, so punish unsafe driving. Dream on. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Ed Huntress says...
It's a dilemma, and focusing only on your *own* risks and rewards misses the point of the safety issue: that your driving risk, most of the time, translates into someone else's driving risk. You take the risk, and they take the consequences. The auto manufacturers could even out the score by disabling the seatbelts and airbags when the cell phone is in use! It all gets back to my plan for safer, more polite roadways. Simply place the driver's seat in front of the front bumper. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... It's a dilemma, and focusing only on your *own* risks and rewards misses the point of the safety issue: that your driving risk, most of the time, translates into someone else's driving risk. You take the risk, and they take the consequences. The auto manufacturers could even out the score by disabling the seatbelts and airbags when the cell phone is in use! Or just disable the personal insurance, which is what I would do for motorcycle riders who don't wear a helmet. Scatter your brains over the highway if you must, but don't drive my insurance rates up in the process, I always say. g It all gets back to my plan for safer, more polite roadways. Simply place the driver's seat in front of the front bumper. 'Sounds chilly. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Ed Huntress says...
The auto manufacturers could even out the score by disabling the seatbelts and airbags when the cell phone is in use! Or just disable the personal insurance, which is what I would do for motorcycle riders who don't wear a helmet. Scatter your brains over the highway if you must, but don't drive my insurance rates up in the process, I always say. g You actually have this the wrong way round, Ed. Insurance premiums are only paid out to live riders. Dead ones don't collect. Helmeted riders have a much larger chance of sticking around and charging their insurance companies for long hospital stays. The ones without helmets tend to have either very short hospital stays, or are never admitted at the ER. They go right to the morgue. There was an interesting study done by a dutch gent (name of van der Sluice) which investigated trauma accident victims. They ranked the degree of trauma from 1 to 4, based on a set of criteria they applied. Of the 4-rated trauma victims, the survival rate was five or ten percent overall. *Except* for the subset of that group which had been in motorcycle accidents. There the survival rate was around FIFTY percent. The Netherlands has a national helmet law for motorbike riders. That same study noted that oddly, the length of hospital stay did not vary directly as a function of the trauma rating. The ones were of course the shortest, twos longer, threes longer still. But the fours were shorter than the 1s. Most of them died before they could spend the night in the hospital. So if you *really* want to cut down insurance costs, you should absolutely _ban_ helmet use. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... The auto manufacturers could even out the score by disabling the seatbelts and airbags when the cell phone is in use! Or just disable the personal insurance, which is what I would do for motorcycle riders who don't wear a helmet. Scatter your brains over the highway if you must, but don't drive my insurance rates up in the process, I always say. g You actually have this the wrong way round, Ed. Insurance premiums are only paid out to live riders. Dead ones don't collect. Yeah, like the ones who have a neurosurgery and wind up in a coma for four weeks, like Gary Busey. Or the hundreds or possibly thousands of other TBI patients who got there because they weren't wearing a helmet. Helmeted riders have a much larger chance of sticking around and charging their insurance companies for long hospital stays. Nope. The ones without helmets tend to have either very short hospital stays, or are never admitted at the ER. They go right to the morgue. Nope. Check your statistics. This was examined thoroughly in the late '80s, Jim. I'm sure the data is still around. Traumatic head injuries that did NOT result in death were something like four times more likely for non-helmet wearers. There was an interesting study done by a dutch gent (name of van der Sluice) which investigated trauma accident victims. They ranked the degree of trauma from 1 to 4, based on a set of criteria they applied. Of the 4-rated trauma victims, the survival rate was five or ten percent overall. *Except* for the subset of that group which had been in motorcycle accidents. There the survival rate was around FIFTY percent. The Netherlands has a national helmet law for motorbike riders. That same study noted that oddly, the length of hospital stay did not vary directly as a function of the trauma rating. The ones were of course the shortest, twos longer, threes longer still. But the fours were shorter than the 1s. Most of them died before they could spend the night in the hospital. So if you *really* want to cut down insurance costs, you should absolutely _ban_ helmet use. Nonsense. This study has been picked up by motorcyclists to defend the indefensible. The TBI statistics are readily available, or were. Check Google Scholar. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... "jim rozen" wrote in message ... snip Jim, just as one example, here's just one report from the American Journal of Public Health, Vol 86, Issue 1 41-45, 1996: "Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to die from their injuries. The average hospital stay for unhelmeted motorcyclists was longer, and cost more per case; the cost of hospitalization for unhelmeted motorcyclists was 60% more overall ($3.5 vs $2.2 million). CONCLUSIONS. Helmet use is strongly associated with reduced probability and severity of injury, reduced economic impact, and a reduction in motorcyclist deaths." If you check the LEGITIMATE literature, you'll find that story repeated over and over again, in peer-reviewed journals. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Ed Huntress says...
Nonsense. This study has been picked up by motorcyclists to defend the indefensible. The TBI statistics are readily available, or were. Check Google Scholar. They're actually not readily available. There was a big helmet thread recently on the m/c ng, and I found it is very difficult to find *real* data on accident statistics, as a function of helmet use. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors out there, but in the end they only talk about the folks who wind up being admitted to the hospital. I found the van der sluice study but honestly nobody I've heard talking about the subject ever mentions it. I'd be interested if you had heard of it from a different source, and if so when. It seem to me to be a very well done study. I'm not trying to defend lack of helmet use, only pointing out that the standard 'don't raise my rates' justification to demanding riders wear one, is on kind of bogus ground. The ABATE folks (anti-helmet use) _never_ use the large mortality argument as one of their selling points. They deny there *is* any difference in mortality. You know of course there is, any sensible person can see why. Most of the pro-helmet folk never touch on the subject because it removes one of the arrows in their quiver - the 'you have to do it for the public good' argument. Most of the guys who survive to be in a coma for a few months were indeed wearing a helmet. They would have been killed outright had then not been. There were two regulars on the m/c ng last year who had accidents. The first one experienced a low-speed parking lot collision between two bikes. He basically fell over in the street at about 15 mph. No helmet. He spent about three months in the hospital with head injuries. The other rider was in a bad accident and crashed on a highway going 60 mph. He also spent a couple of months in the hospital. Without a helmet he would have died. But the severity difference between the two crashes was probably a factor of 100 in kinetic energy. Most folks don't realize a) how fragile a human head is, and b) how well the foam in a helmet protects it against shock load. Folks who crash at any decent speed stand a good chance of dying from a head injury. -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» | Electronics | |||
| Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? | Electronics Repair | |||
| Headsets for cordless phones | Electronics Repair | |||
| Cell Phone Jammer | Electronics Repair | |||
| Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
