Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:41:52 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress" spake: That isn't the question. The question is whether you would try, or would leave somebody there on the road, still alive, because you think he was foolish not to wear a helmet -- or not to wear a seatbelt. Larry says he would let them lie. I don't believe him. No wonder you don't believe me. You took everything I said and twisted it around what you wanted to hear. Reread the whole conversation and look for context this time, eh? Oy vay. Those were the specific answers you gave to my questions. 'Want to see the sequence? I have it. g -- Ed Huntress |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:43:25 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than the ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for my wife. Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you. What ABS system does that? I'll admit my auto technology is quite a bit outdated but I havent heard of any ABS that modulate all four wheels independently. You can tell if yours does by looking at the valve body on the ABS system. If there's four separate actuators on the valve body, then yours does. If your car has TCS (Traction Control System) as an option, that's pretty much a dead giveaway that the ABS has separate control channels for each of the wheels. Dave Hinz |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Feb 2005 16:14:02 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Even a *low* speed fall-over is going to have bad consequences unless the rider has a helmet. The helmet is the best way to see to it that the rider gets admitted to a hospital at the end of the ambulance ride. ...or, gets a ride in the ambulance at all, instead of leaving the scene in a bag. My guess is that the body would probably go via ambulance no matter even if it were in a bag. Nope. Not in our district, that's the Coronor's function. First off to put the person in the bag, somebody has to pronounce, right? Which means a doctor in most states. In Wisconsin, in cases of "obvious death" (which is, er, obvious) the EMTs can do it. If it's not absolutely obvious, we'll work the patient until Flight or the coronor show up, and they call it. The Coronor (again, in our area, which is rural if that matters) will coordinate with the funeral home, who often transports the body directly from the scene. We don't transport bodies, unless they start out as patients. I'm not sure if the wagon rolled up with a DOA victim that they would probably just wheel him/her right downstairs. Nope, if they're alive enough to transport, they'll be worked for the whole ride and then either worked, or called, on arrival. But the days of hearses picking folks right up are probably gone. I recall my mom saying that when they had a car wreck in Kansas, in the early 50s, she was transported to the hospital in a hearse. The community did not have an ambulance so any vehicle where the person could lie down was better than nothing. The first ambulances were run by the funeral homes. Something about "conflict of interest" bugs me about that. She did say it gave her the creeps a bit. I can appreciate that. Not to mention the people in the other cars, that she was waving to from the back, I'd think. Dave Hinz |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:41:52 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:13:27 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally, would ensure saving a life. Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT. Yeah, so am I. And 99% of the time, there is nothing I can do, personally, to insure saving a life. That isn't the question. The question is whether you would try, or would leave somebody there on the road, still alive, because you think he was foolish not to wear a helmet -- or not to wear a seatbelt. That is one thing that bugs me in this whole EMT/Firefighter thing. The people we're helping, 80% of the time, did something earthshatteringly stupid to get into the situation they're in. Blunt, but true. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:02:57 -0800, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:13:27 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress" spake: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally, would ensure saving a life. Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT. Uh, at this point, I'm far too schizo to be an EMT. Sorry. You'd be surprised... something about that field attracts the Napolean-complex types especially. Not any more. There are "good Samaritan" laws in almost every state. Hey, that's good news. When did they come about? It couldn't have been more than maybe 3 years since I heard the last horror story. Well, you can get _sued_ for anything, but sued successfully is the test. GS laws clearly deliniate what you can or can't be held liable for. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
... That is one thing that bugs me in this whole EMT/Firefighter thing. The people we're helping, 80% of the time, did something earthshatteringly stupid to get into the situation they're in. Blunt, but true. That doesn't surprise me. It's testimony, IMO, to the dedication you guys demonstrate. -- Ed Huntress |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
That is one thing that bugs me in this whole EMT/Firefighter thing. The people we're helping, 80% of the time, did something earthshatteringly stupid to get into the situation they're in. Blunt, but true. OK then you are the ideal person to ask this question to: Do you agree with Ed, that the govenment should pass laws or regulations that are designed to limit the stupid things citizens can do? How far should the goverment go in this approach, and in you estimation, do the existing laws which mandate safety gear like seatbelts, airbags, motorcycle or bicycle helmets, actually prevent citizens from doing earthshatteringly stupid things? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
jim rozen wrote: Again, I suggest that folks drive with the knowledge that they have the ABS to bail them out. So they do stupid stuff that they shouldn't do. They also do stupider stuff when they have seat belts and airbags. All these new safety wonders keep the stupid drivers on the road and my insurance is paying to get them another car so they can crash into me again. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: I've got a '99 Saab, and I've had ABS engage exactly three times - one was a test. I've got a '92 Saturn and the ABS engages all the time, usually when I'm driving down a steep gravel road at 10 mph in perfect control (before the ABS engages). IT also has frequently released the brakes when I'm maneuvering in tight quarters on a sloping gravel parking lot, making my car lunge for the nearest car. Haven't crashed yet but it sure is scary to have the brakes release unexpectedly when you are (were) in complete control. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:00:25 -0500, Nick Hull wrote:
In article , jim rozen wrote: Again, I suggest that folks drive with the knowledge that they have the ABS to bail them out. So they do stupid stuff that they shouldn't do. They also do stupider stuff when they have seat belts and airbags. I don't think any of these have made people act more stupidly, stupid folks have been around all throughout history. The devices, however, isolate stupid people from suffering the cost of their stupidity in some cases. All these new safety wonders keep the stupid drivers on the road and my insurance is paying to get them another car so they can crash into me again. Yup. |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:42:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... That is one thing that bugs me in this whole EMT/Firefighter thing. The people we're helping, 80% of the time, did something earthshatteringly stupid to get into the situation they're in. Blunt, but true. That doesn't surprise me. It's testimony, IMO, to the dedication you guys demonstrate. Well, it's the other 20% that make it worthwhile. I'll _treat_ the drunk idiot frequent flier in a ditch at 3:00 AM, but it doesn't mean I have to _like_ the guy, y'know? |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Feb 2005 09:50:58 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... That is one thing that bugs me in this whole EMT/Firefighter thing. The people we're helping, 80% of the time, did something earthshatteringly stupid to get into the situation they're in. Blunt, but true. OK then you are the ideal person to ask this question to: Do you agree with Ed, that the govenment should pass laws or regulations that are designed to limit the stupid things citizens can do? It doesn't reduce stupidity, it isolates stupid people from the results of their stupid actions. However, the 20% of the time when it helps the non-stupid person from (usually) the actions of the stupid people, to me, makes it worth doing. How far should the goverment go in this approach, and in you estimation, do the existing laws which mandate safety gear like seatbelts, airbags, motorcycle or bicycle helmets, actually prevent citizens from doing earthshatteringly stupid things? Nope, it just cushions the impact when they keep doing what they were doing before. But, they protect me from the dumb ones better, so I'm for it. After a dozen years of seeing people "partially ejected" from rollovers, and since that can't happen if you're buckled, and since "partially ejected" means the car is bouncing off of your head at least once - well, let's just say the spectacular injuries I've seen have all been un-belted patients. I obvously am not speaking as a representative of any of the emergency services I work with, at this point. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you. What ABS system does that? Gee, I thought they all did! My 96 jeep grand cherokee has wonderful ABS. My 2000 Hummer has decent ABS. ABS is general does not work well in grave or sand. A locked wheel is better. |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
It doesn't reduce stupidity, it isolates stupid people from the results of their stupid actions. However, the 20% of the time when it helps the non-stupid person from (usually) the actions of the stupid people, to me, makes it worth doing. I can see that. Ed and I have an ongoing *ahem* discussion about this. From your perspective the laws make some good sense then. How far should the goverment go in this approach, and in you estimation, do the existing laws which mandate safety gear like seatbelts, airbags, motorcycle or bicycle helmets, actually prevent citizens from doing earthshatteringly stupid things? Nope, it just cushions the impact when they keep doing what they were doing before. But, they protect me from the dumb ones better, so I'm for it. After a dozen years of seeing people "partially ejected" from rollovers, and since that can't happen if you're buckled, and since "partially ejected" means the car is bouncing off of your head at least once - well, let's just say the spectacular injuries I've seen have all been un-belted patients. Nobody is suggesting that seatbelts don't prevent that. The question is, are the laws a good idea. As another poster says, the airbags and seatbelts just allow them to survive after they do something stupid, bill everyone else for a new car (via insurance) and then go and crash again. It is tough to separate the idea that "seatbelts are good" from "seatbelt laws are bad" at some point. Either I'm really in a minority here on rcm (which would suprise me honestly, given the past posting histories here) but I don't think that we need laws to protect people from themselves. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 13:37:36 -0800
jim rozen wrote: It is tough to separate the idea that "seatbelts are good" from "seatbelt laws are bad" at some point. Either I'm really in a minority here on rcm (which would suprise me honestly, given the past posting histories here) but I don't think that we need laws to protect people from themselves. The difficulty comes when those people are part of a society. At what point does an individual doing something stupid have an impact on society big enough to mean society has to protect itself? Or protect other members? Seatbelt laws and laws about driving drunk or while on the phone are probably different in that way. Theoretically, someone without a seatbelt hurts themselves only, someone who is impaired enough to be very unlikely to be able to control a ton and a half of lethal weapon is a danger to others. But when the bod who hasn't a belt is killed, there's a cost. Cleaning up if naught else. Enough of a cost to justify a law? What about the cost of dealing with the family? What if the bod isn't killed, but is seriously injured? If they have no insurance, who picks up the tab? Enough of an impact to make a law? It would seem that those who have enough money to insure themselves and their families every which way will have less of an impact. But it is also likely that those prudent enough to do so are also prudent enough to wear belts. If that's so, then the costs of the death or injury due to lack of belt will be borne by society, that is by the state. Enough of an impact to make a law? And if so,what sort of law? "You have to have insurance if you don't wear a belt"? Think of the policing cost! I dont think there are simple answers, it's a complex, many layered, problem. Of course where I live, belts have been compulsory since long before we had socialised medicine. But the culture is very different and I wouldn't want to compare the two countries. Zebee |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Zebee Johnstone says...
Seatbelt laws and laws about driving drunk or while on the phone are probably different in that way. Theoretically, someone without a seatbelt hurts themselves only, someone who is impaired enough to be very unlikely to be able to control a ton and a half of lethal weapon is a danger to others. I think that's the critical separation. The first catagory (helmet and seatbelt laws - for *adults*, that is) are laws designed to protect the individual from their own actions. The effect to society is tertiary at best. The second set of laws protect one driver from another driver's actions. Because we all share public roadways, anyone who drives impaired (drunk, or cell phone use) will *directly* affect other road users. It's a primary effect, not teritiary. I would argue that the first set of laws do citizens a real dis-service. As has been said more eloquently by another poster, those laws shield drivers from the effects of their own stupidity. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Zebee Johnstone says... Seatbelt laws and laws about driving drunk or while on the phone are probably different in that way. Theoretically, someone without a seatbelt hurts themselves only, someone who is impaired enough to be very unlikely to be able to control a ton and a half of lethal weapon is a danger to others. I think that's the critical separation. The first catagory (helmet and seatbelt laws - for *adults*, that is) are laws designed to protect the individual from their own actions. The effect to society is tertiary at best. I can buy that. Most of the dumber ones ignore the laws anyway. But, society still has to pay for the brain-damaged non helmet wearing "survivor", so there is _some_ effect. The second set of laws protect one driver from another driver's actions. Arguably, seat belts _could_ fall into this category. Secondary crashes and all that. Because we all share public roadways, anyone who drives impaired (drunk, Yes, or cell phone use) IF, and only if, they perform unsafely while using the cellphone. Punish bad driving, not things that sometimes cause bad driving. will *directly* affect other road users. It's a primary effect, not teritiary. Arguable for cellphones. Sorry. Still. I would argue that the first set of laws do citizens a real dis-service. Whaaaat? If I don't have to pay taxes to support some idiot who is mostly dead for the rest of his unnatural life, I'm all for that. As has been said more eloquently by another poster, those laws shield drivers from the effects of their own stupidity. That might have been me? Doesn't make 'em less stupid, it just gives the EMTs something more intact to work on after they do stupid stuff. Dave |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 23:39:52 GMT
Dave Hinz wrote: On 16 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0800, jim rozen wrote: Because we all share public roadways, anyone who drives impaired (drunk, Yes, or cell phone use) IF, and only if, they perform unsafely while using the cellphone. Punish bad driving, not things that sometimes cause bad driving. Umm... how are the two different? It is known that not everyone who drives having had alcohol is going to crash, or even drive badly. It is known that over a certain level of alcohol in the blood, the chance of having a crash increases, but forbidding driving while drunk is not punishing bad driving, it is punishing driving while in a state that correlates with bad driving. THe same appears to be true for banning driving while talking on a mobile phone. So where are the differences in your mind between the two? Especially given the studies about physical and mental co-ordination? If you punish bad driving, how will that be done? Is it cost effective for society to spend resources on dealing with people who are right then driving badly, or on trying to prevent it? I suspect that's going to depend a lot on your definition of "driving badly", on the local circumstances such as congestion, number of vulnerable road users, road design etc, and on what you consider is a good return on investment. Plus, of course, how much "bad driving" by what ever definition you choose contributes to crashes, and how you tell... Zebee |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Zebee Johnstone says...
Umm... how are the two different? I was drawing a line between two different catagories. The first one contained (helmet laws + seatbelt laws) The second one contained (drunk driving + driving while impaired, phone) I feel the two items in the second catagory are, indeed, quite similar. Your level of outrage that I might be saying their not, implies to me you feel the same. Sorry for the confusion. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
As has been said more eloquently by another poster, those laws shield drivers from the effects of their own stupidity. That might have been me? Not at all, it was another person who chimed in recently in this thread. You did make your position pretty clear. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:32 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 23:39:52 GMT Dave Hinz wrote: On 16 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0800, jim rozen wrote: Because we all share public roadways, anyone who drives impaired (drunk, Yes, or cell phone use) IF, and only if, they perform unsafely while using the cellphone. Punish bad driving, not things that sometimes cause bad driving. Umm... how are the two different? They are profoundly different. Unsafe driving can include things like unsafe lane changes, unsignalled moves, inappropriate speed, cutting someone off, and so on. Talking on a cellphone is talking on a cellphone. Talking on a cellphone doesn't make _me_ make unsafe lane changes, or the other unsafe driving actions. Some people don't pay attention and cause problems, some people are capable of using a cellphone (in one way or another - earphone? Handsfree?) without running into other cars. The unsafe drivers should be punished regardless of the reason for their unsafe driving. Just not paying attention but cutting me off, is just as bad as being on a cellphone to cut me off. It is known that not everyone who drives having had alcohol is going to crash, or even drive badly. OK, but are those people going to be pulled over? Probably not; it's when a problem happens that the unsafe behavior is punished. It is known that over a certain level of alcohol in the blood, the chance of having a crash increases, but forbidding driving while drunk is not punishing bad driving, it is punishing driving while in a state that correlates with bad driving. But, alcohol invariably decreases a driver's safety. Cellphone usage only decreases a driver's safety if they're the sort of person who can't prioritize what they should be paying attention to. One is physiological, the other is strictly mental. THe same appears to be true for banning driving while talking on a mobile phone. Depends on who you listen to. So where are the differences in your mind between the two? Especially given the studies about physical and mental co-ordination? The differences are physiological vs. mental. The people who are unsafe drivers with a cellphone, are probably unsafe drivers without that cellphone. If you punish bad driving, how will that be done? Police cars? Just an idea. Is it cost effective for society to spend resources on dealing with people who are right then driving badly, or on trying to prevent it? So, you're going to punish people who do nothing wrong, because they use an item correctly, rather than punishing those who do something wrong? We're back to the gun control argument. I suspect that's going to depend a lot on your definition of "driving badly", These are already defined violations. Enforce the existing laws, and don't punish those doing nothing wrong. on the local circumstances such as congestion, number of vulnerable road users, road design etc, and on what you consider is a good return on investment. You're overanalyzing this. Enforce the existing traffic laws. Hell, go ahead and add on a $20 fine if the violation happens when a cellphone is in use, much like the "...and you weren't wearing your seatbelt" addon. Great, that's fine, it's appropriate. But, don't ticket me for not screwing up. Plus, of course, how much "bad driving" by what ever definition you choose contributes to crashes, and how you tell... These things are well defined. Dave Hinz |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Feb 2005 18:39:18 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... As has been said more eloquently by another poster, those laws shield drivers from the effects of their own stupidity. That might have been me? Not at all, it was another person who chimed in recently in this thread. You did make your position pretty clear. Yeah, I do tend to do that. At length. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
But, alcohol invariably decreases a driver's safety. Cellphone usage only decreases a driver's safety if they're the sort of person who can't prioritize what they should be paying attention to. Ah, that's a bunch of baloney. Alcohol use only decreases a driver's safety if they're the kind of person who can't stay focussed when they're drunk. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 10:17:54 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... But, alcohol invariably decreases a driver's safety. Cellphone usage only decreases a driver's safety if they're the sort of person who can't prioritize what they should be paying attention to. Ah, that's a bunch of baloney. Alcohol use only decreases a driver's safety if they're the kind of person who can't stay focussed when they're drunk. Cite please, Jim? And yes, I recognize your tactic, but I still contend that a physiological reaction is profoundly different than someone being able to concentrate appropriately, or not. You'd really want to write me a ticket for using my cellphone, even though I'm not doing anything unsafe? |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 18:37:42 -0800
jim rozen wrote: In article , Zebee Johnstone says... Umm... how are the two different? I was drawing a line between two different catagories. The first one contained (helmet laws + seatbelt laws) The second one contained (drunk driving + driving while impaired, phone) I feel the two items in the second catagory are, indeed, quite similar. Your level of outrage that I might be saying their not, implies to me you feel the same. Sorry for the confusion. I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. Very different thing. Zebee |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:10:36 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 18:37:42 -0800 jim rozen wrote: In article , Zebee Johnstone says... Umm... how are the two different? I was drawing a line between two different catagories. The first one contained (helmet laws + seatbelt laws) The second one contained (drunk driving + driving while impaired, phone) I feel the two items in the second catagory are, indeed, quite similar. Your level of outrage that I might be saying their not, implies to me you feel the same. Sorry for the confusion. I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. Tell me, please, how a drunk driver will be found if they're not driving poorly? By the way, it's me who wants to punish bad driving, not Jim. Jim wants to punish me for driving just fine but using a cellphone, which _some_ people can't use and drive well with. They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. So, if someone is driving drunk but not doing something unsafe, you can see that somehow? How, specifically? If someone is holding a cellphone but not driving unsafely, you can see the cellphone. Very different thing. Indeed they are. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 17 Feb 2005 20:18:46 GMT
Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:10:36 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote: I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. Tell me, please, how a drunk driver will be found if they're not driving poorly? By the way, it's me who wants to punish bad driving, Random breath tests. THey have dropped the number of crashes involving alcohol in Australia by a large amount. And the number of people detected driving with measurable levels of alcohol - not just over the limit - has dropped dramatically too. IT is probable that it isn't RBT alone, that intensive media campaigns are also part of it. But as those were happening before RBT, the RBT has to be given the major part of the credit. not Jim. Jim wants to punish me for driving just fine but using a cellphone, which _some_ people can't use and drive well with. Just as "some* people can't drive well when affected by alcohol. Neither is an all or nothing proposition, neither is guaranteed to cause a crash. Both appear to affect the brain's ability to process, and in very similar ways. As there's no "random mobile phone test", it isn't possible to tell how many people are driving under the influence of telephone, so it's not possible to see if the crashes involving them are under or over-represented. Comes back to the problem of "punishing bad driving". As the use of alcohol when driving doesn't automatically lead to bad driving, is it right to make that illegal? If it is, then why is it not right to make using a mobile when driving illegal, given they both have similar effects on the brain and the processing of tasks? They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. So, if someone is driving drunk but not doing something unsafe, you can see that somehow? How, specifically? If someone is holding a cellphone but not driving unsafely, you can see the cellphone. Very different thing. Indeed they are. See above - RBT. Which you might not have experienced, but is common where I am. I am mostly out in commute time, which doesn't have a high percentage of drinking drivers so I haven't been tested recently. But if I drive in the danger period for drunks, I get pulled over every month or two. (Inlcuding 10am on Sunday morning in the middle of nowhere, about what... 60km from Taree? They were after the bods who had been getting into it after a big football match) The worry of being done for drink driving by an RBT has stopped a lot of people drinking and driving. The entire culture has changed dramatically since RBT came in. But use a phone in the car and as long as you aren't physically seen by a cop who can do something about it, you are OK. Which is the same as any other vehicular silliness such as unsafe lane changing, failure to indicate, tailgating etc. The two offenses - drinking and cellphone use - are not guaranteed to cause a crash. Or even to cause bad driving, as some people say they can drive quite well doing one or ther other. And point to their own crash record as proof. I know that not everyone who drives drunk will crash, just as I know that not everyone who uses a phone while driving will. THe problem is to decide why "I can do it, even if you can't" is a defence in one but not the other. Zebee -- Zebee Johnstone ), proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1. "Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?" |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:30:07 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking on 17 Feb 2005 20:18:46 GMT Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:10:36 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote: I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. Tell me, please, how a drunk driver will be found if they're not driving poorly? By the way, it's me who wants to punish bad driving, Random breath tests. THey have dropped the number of crashes involving alcohol in Australia by a large amount. And the number of people detected driving with measurable levels of alcohol - not just over the limit - has dropped dramatically too. So, you have a problem with me driving with a cellphone and not causing crashes or inconveniencing anyone, but you don't have a problem with random roadside stops? That's...inconsistant. IT is probable that it isn't RBT alone, that intensive media campaigns are also part of it. But as those were happening before RBT, the RBT has to be given the major part of the credit. OK. I don't have a problem with them, but I understand the point of people who do. But I still have a problem with people equating a physiological reaction to a substance, with being able to pay attention to driving or not. not Jim. Jim wants to punish me for driving just fine but using a cellphone, which _some_ people can't use and drive well with. Just as "some* people can't drive well when affected by alcohol. I'd suspect that it's "most" or "nearly all" rather than "some" in that case. Neither is an all or nothing proposition, neither is guaranteed to cause a crash. Of course not. Both appear to affect the brain's ability to process, and in very similar ways. Based on a study, yes. Maybe. There have been studies showing that smoking helps improve a sore throat, too. Sometimes, studies are done with people with motivations other than absolute truth. As there's no "random mobile phone test", it isn't possible to tell how many people are driving under the influence of telephone, so it's not possible to see if the crashes involving them are under or over-represented. "Yes, officer, I saw the other driver on his cellphone when he crashed into me"... Standard accident and injury forms (in the US, anyway) have dozens of checkboxes for information gathering of this type. Was the seatbelt in use, or not? DId the airbag deploy? That sort of thing. Comes back to the problem of "punishing bad driving". As the use of alcohol when driving doesn't automatically lead to bad driving, is it right to make that illegal? It has been shown that above a certain percentage, enough people are driving impaired that it makes sense to set the limit there. If it is, then why is it not right to make using a mobile when driving illegal, given they both have similar effects on the brain and the processing of tasks? Arguable at best. Again, I contend that the people who can't concentrate while talking on a cellphone are inherently unsafe drivers no matter what. Punish violations by adding more fines if they're doing something stupid _and_ on the cellphone, but if someone is on a cellphone doing nothing stupid/unsafe, there's no reason to give them a problem. They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. So, if someone is driving drunk but not doing something unsafe, you can see that somehow? How, specifically? If someone is holding a cellphone but not driving unsafely, you can see the cellphone. I notice no response to a rather key point here. Very different thing. Indeed they are. See above - RBT. Which you might not have experienced, but is common where I am. I've heard of them here (USA) but never experienced one. Wouldn't bother me particularly other than the inconvenience factor, but I understand and appreciate the viewpoint of those who have civil liberties concerns with them. Then again, we're citizens rather than subjects, so it's a cultural thing there. I am mostly out in commute time, which doesn't have a high percentage of drinking drivers so I haven't been tested recently. But if I drive in the danger period for drunks, I get pulled over every month or two. (Inlcuding 10am on Sunday morning in the middle of nowhere, about what... 60km from Taree? They were after the bods who had been getting into it after a big football match) I've responded to an accident call at 10:AM on a sunday, for a very drunk college student. So, it happens. The worry of being done for drink driving by an RBT has stopped a lot of people drinking and driving. In other words, an unsafe driving activity has been identified and reduced by enforcement of existing laws. That's a _great_ idea. The entire culture has changed dramatically since RBT came in. But use a phone in the car and as long as you aren't physically seen by a cop who can do something about it, you are OK. If you're not calling attention to yourself by driving poorly, cellphone or no, then I don't see any reason the cops _should_ care (or be told to care). Which is the same as any other vehicular silliness such as unsafe lane changing, failure to indicate, tailgating etc. Cellphone conversations don't cause the above, bad driving causes the above. I know that not everyone who drives drunk will crash, just as I know that not everyone who uses a phone while driving will. THe problem is to decide why "I can do it, even if you can't" is a defence in one but not the other. One is biology, the other is mental. Huge difference there. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Zebee Johnstone says...
I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. Very different thing. Yeahbut. The trouble is, cops aren't very smart. That's what it boils down to. Apparently society needs a bright-line rule that cops can check (in the book, right there) before they turn on the red lights. So the rule is, such-and-such BAC, yes or no. Or, is that a cell phone in his hand, yes or no. Did he run the red light, yes or no. Not every instance of running a red light causes a crash. But you *could* say, that the behavior of running red lights is statistically linked with crashes. How would it be if I said, "I think I'm smart enough to know when to go through red lights, and I don't do it when it's really unsafe." That's the cell phone/drunk driving issue writ clear. "I know enough not to be unsafe when driving with my phone in my ear. *I'm* one of the safe ones." If you can say that, then it's a short step to "I know when I need to wear a helmet, and when I don't." Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 14:16:46 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Cite please, Jim? Um, the same as yours, from your post. g And yes, I recognize your tactic, but I still contend that a physiological reaction is profoundly different than someone being able to concentrate appropriately, or not. Well both sets of folks at least *drive* like drunks. SOME OF THEM, Jim. The same ones that drive like idiots when they're not on cellphones. Cell phone users and drunks, that is. You'd really want to write me a ticket for using my cellphone, even though I'm not doing anything unsafe? Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. It's like people blaming responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals, and I resent it. Dave Hinz |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... That's the cell phone/drunk driving issue writ clear. "I know enough not to be unsafe when driving with my phone in my ear. *I'm* one of the safe ones." If you can say that, then it's a short step to "I know when I need to wear a helmet, and when I don't." Oh, that one is easy. I learned it from ABATE. The answer is, "just before you're going to crash." d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Dave Hinz says... Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. Not if you're Laura Bush. You can run a stop sign and kill someone and get away with it, or you could, if you were from the right family, in the right town in Texas, during the '60's. Maybe it depends on who you kill, too. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. That's what Laura said...right before the crash. -- Ed Huntress |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:22:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Hinz says... Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. Not if you're Laura Bush. You can run a stop sign and kill someone and get away with it, or you could, if you were from the right family, in the right town in Texas, during the '60's. Maybe it depends on who you kill, too. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. That's what Laura said...right before the crash. I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? Glub glub? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 14:23:39 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Zebee Johnstone says... I think I was confused because you wanted to "punish bad driving" and neither drink driving laws nor mobile phone laws do that. They punish behaviour that has a statistical liklihood of leading to a crash. Very different thing. Yeahbut. The trouble is, cops aren't very smart. That's what it boils down to. I know dozens of real world (rural) cops, and I find your opinion to be at odds (once again) with my direct personal experience. Maybe your cops are different (unlikely), or maybe, just maybe, you once again have a preconceived notion and won't be swayed. Apparently society needs a bright-line rule that cops can check (in the book, right there) before they turn on the red lights. Yawn. Resorting to personal insults shows just how weak you know your point is. So the rule is, such-and-such BAC, yes or no. Or, is that a cell phone in his hand, yes or no. Did he run the red light, yes or no. So far, so good. Not every instance of running a red light causes a crash. But you *could* say, that the behavior of running red lights is statistically linked with crashes. Yes, it's a specific example of bad driving. And? How would it be if I said, "I think I'm smart enough to know when to go through red lights, and I don't do it when it's really unsafe." That would be stupid, Jim. That's the cell phone/drunk driving issue writ clear. "I know enough not to be unsafe when driving with my phone in my ear. *I'm* one of the safe ones." Yes, Jim, I am. Bad drivers are bad drivers regardless of what else they're doing. If you can say that, then it's a short step to "I know when I need to wear a helmet, and when I don't." In our state, it's voluntary. Insane but true. But, Wisconsin leads the country in organ donation, which probably isn't coincidence. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 14:58:17 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. Hardly the samr thing, and even you know that. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. First you equate me to a drunk driver, and now this. So...what IS your stance on, say, concealed firearm carry by law-abiding citizens? I have a guess... |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Gunner says...
I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? Glub glub? Hmm. Before, or after the crash.... Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. Hardly the same thing, and even you know that. OK, fine. You don't like *that* analogy, I'll propose another one. I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to themselves and others on the road, by driving above the speed limit. *I'm* a safe, skilled driver so I should be allowed to ignore the sign and drive as fast as I want. After all, they should punish the poor drivers who cause crashes, and I don't cause crashes. Just driving fast shouldn't be illegal, driving poorly should. Because I'm highly skilled and mentally acute, the limit shouldn't apply to me. I dunno Dave. If you don't like that analogy, I could probably come up with a few more. No left turn signs, passing on the double solid line, loitering in the left lane, going the wrong way down a one way street,etc etc etc. My point is that *all* the folks who disagree with, or flat out disregard, those kinds of laws use exactly the same rational that you do for cell phone use. Aw, I'm not hurting anyone. You don't drive like a ****** when you use your phone in the car. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. But 90 percent of those that do, drive *exactly* that way. As the classic third grade teacher line goes, "it's a real shame that the bad actions of a few rotten apples have to spoil the fun for the rest of you..." Most folks in NY drive like ******s when they have their ears glued to a phone. Because of that, you can't use a hand-held in that state. I'm happy because at least when some soccer mom shoots across three lanes on the taconic parkway, deeply immersed in whatever *vital* phone call she's doing, I can have the miniscule, faint, microscopic hope that maybe someday she'll get a ticket for it. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:22:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Hinz says... Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. Not if you're Laura Bush. You can run a stop sign and kill someone and get away with it, or you could, if you were from the right family, in the right town in Texas, during the '60's. Maybe it depends on who you kill, too. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. That's what Laura said...right before the crash. I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? Glub glub? What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights? -- Ed Huntress |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:41:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:22:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Hinz says... Me? No, I'll let the NY State trooper do that. If it's a hand-held, they'll do that. It's illegal in NY at this point. Yes, I know. And you think that that's just fine, even though I'm not creating a danger for me or anyone else. Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. I'm really careful when I do it, and never cause a danger for anyone else. Just because some folks crash when they run red lights, I resent being treated like a criminal when I do it. They should punish the act of crashing into someone, not running the light. Not if you're Laura Bush. You can run a stop sign and kill someone and get away with it, or you could, if you were from the right family, in the right town in Texas, during the '60's. Maybe it depends on who you kill, too. I'm one of those *safe* red-light runners. That's what Laura said...right before the crash. I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? Glub glub? What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights? Your implication and attack, I just matched it with other data. If you were not trying for a cheap shot, you wouldnt have used Laura Bush. My cheap shot was in response. But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
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 |