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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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outdated but I havent heard of any ABS that modulate all four wheels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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Nick Hull
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Nick Hull
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Charles A. Sherwood
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Zebee Johnstone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Zebee Johnstone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Zebee Johnstone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Zebee Johnstone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» Paulo Electronics 0 January 2nd 05 03:48 AM
Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? Dana Electronics Repair 6 January 23rd 04 08:59 PM
Headsets for cordless phones Lloyd Randall Electronics Repair 8 December 11th 03 02:59 PM
Cell Phone Jammer Loose Cannon Electronics Repair 26 November 23rd 03 02:10 AM
Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall Zymurgy UK diy 69 August 26th 03 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"