"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
om...
Sorry. I didn't intend to offend anyone. I just figured you oldies can't
drive so how can you still use a table saw? ---JUST KIDDING!!!

I just renewed my license for another 6 years. They really should have a
test to get some of the really bad old people off the road. Some are down
right scary.


Again. I'm sorry I offended any seniors.

Careful, you may get to be one of us some day.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:52:59 GMT, "stoutman" .@. wrote:

I was simply making the point that the quality of product is not driven by
the size of the TS price tag, but rather by the quality of the craftsman.

If I believed the old "you have to have the $1000 TS" attitude, I would
never have tried this awesome hobby. Sure a $1000 TS would be nice, but IT
IS NOT NECESSARY.

Checked out my web site did you?

I was NOT referring to you, but the attitude of many.

=====================
Gosh I am waiting for my 1st social Secuirty check to hit the mailbox
in a few weeks... (qualifies me as old I guess)...and I still use a
Crapsman Bandsaw I bought new in the late 60's..(So I am not hung up
on high priced tools..).

BUT I have owned a Cabinet saw (Bies equipted) for about 15 years
now....great saw and fence... I love it....!

BUT

A year or so ago I ran into a Delta/Rockwell Contractors saw (with a
masonary blade mounted in it...???) at an estate auction... everyone
was bidding like crazy on household stuff and I was the only bidder
on the tablesaw so I walked out with it for 10 bucks....

After cleaning up the cast iron top and tossing the worn masonary
blade int he trash and buying a 100 dollar Forrest blade for it and
constructing a sled for it it is now my dead on accurate cross cutting
machine.... yea 10 buck saw and a 100 dollar blade...but what the
heck...

Honestly if the Rockwell/Delta or Delta/Rockwell had a Bies like fence
I honestly would not hesitate to use it for any cut I needed
done...its only disadvantage is in dust collection and a little less
power (both not that important to me)..

Bob G.

Definitely, if you have 220 power/socket available and the price
difference is indeed 0, get the 3hp.

John

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:18:17 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


"Nascar Raiders" wrote in message
...
Grizzly offers this in both a 220v 3 hp motor or the 2 hp 110v I would
think for my needs the 2 hp would be enough, or for the same price
should I go ahead and get the 220v 3 hp ?
Sure am glad I checked with you guys first and thanks to all of you
for the advice.....alot of money, but sounds like it will be worth it in
the long run.

Paul

The Grizzly is a good choice, and you will never need to buy another saw
again. In fact, your descendants can keep using it long after you are gone.
Jim

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"stoutman" .@. wrote in message
om...
Sorry. I didn't intend to offend anyone. I just figured you oldies
can't drive so how can you still use a table saw? ---JUST
KIDDING!!!

I just renewed my license for another 6 years. They really should
have a test to get some of the really bad old people off the road.
Some are down right scary.

Certainly not ALL bad drivers are old folks. But I don't seem to drive as
well as I used to. Or maybe I simply pay better attention to my lack of
paying attention these days. ;-)



Again. I'm sorry I offended any seniors.

Careful, you may get to be one of us some day.


Only if he's lucky.

Patriarch

Patriarch wrote:


Certainly not ALL bad drivers are old folks. But I don't seem to drive as
well as I used to. Or maybe I simply pay better attention to my lack of
paying attention these days. ;-)


Again. I'm sorry I offended any seniors.

Careful, you may get to be one of us some day.



Only if he's lucky.

Patriarch
anyone on a cell phone is a bad driver. most of them are young women,
in my experience. I'd love to see laws passed in every state in the
union that would make it a crime to use a cell phone in a vehicle with
the engine running. Even if it's a hands-free model. I use a cell
phone while driving and find it a distraction. I'd be more than happy
to give up the privilege if it meant getting 100 million other
distracted drivers off of theirs.

Dave

David wrote in
:

Patriarch wrote:


Certainly not ALL bad drivers are old folks. But I don't seem to
drive as well as I used to. Or maybe I simply pay better attention
to my lack of paying attention these days. ;-)


Again. I'm sorry I offended any seniors.

Careful, you may get to be one of us some day.



Only if he's lucky.

Patriarch
anyone on a cell phone is a bad driver. most of them are young women,
in my experience. I'd love to see laws passed in every state in the
union that would make it a crime to use a cell phone in a vehicle with
the engine running. Even if it's a hands-free model. I use a cell
phone while driving and find it a distraction. I'd be more than happy
to give up the privilege if it meant getting 100 million other
distracted drivers off of theirs.

Dave


The only one I can control is me. If you find the cell phone
distracting, let the call roll to voicemail, have a passenger take the
call, or pull over safely. I think that what I do behind the wheel is
the major factor in the safety of my trip, regardless of the driving
habits of the others around me.

As to influencing the behavior of young women, that's an area in which I
have very little track record of success...

Patriarch

"Bob G." wrote in message

Honestly if the Rockwell/Delta or Delta/Rockwell had a Bies like fence
I honestly would not hesitate to use it for any cut I needed
done...its only disadvantage is in dust collection and a little less
power (both not that important to me)..

Why can't you add an aftermarket fence (like a Bies) to the Rockwell? I've
got a 30 year old Rockwell/Beaver that I added an Excalibur fence to. Lots
of iron on the side of the table top to drill mounting holes if necessary.
The existing holes on my Rockwell/Beaver were fine for mounting without my
having to drill.

wrote:


We may be putting to much on cell phone use. Is that really any more
distractiong than one of those "100 button" CD player/radios or a
satellite navigation system?
The heater A/C has become a mind boggling thing to run.
New car dash boards look like the bridge of the star ship enterprise
these days.
Add a cup of hot coffee, a cigarette, an Egg McMuffin and two
screaming kids in the back seat ... it's no wonder we need air bags.
changing songs on my iPod as it sits on the floor is a bit of
distraction also. I have to lean quite a way over to reach it, taking my
eyes off the road.

While no law will achieve 100% compliance, a no-phone-while-driving law
would certainly curtail much of the gabbing, just like mandatory seat
belt and helmet laws have increased the usage of both. I realize that
phones are more difficult for law enforcement officials to spot, as
compared to seat belts and helmets so I suppose there will be plenty of
scofflaws.

Dave

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:55:37 -0700, David wrote:

While no law will achieve 100% compliance, a no-phone-while-driving law
would certainly curtail much of the gabbing, just like mandatory seat
belt and helmet laws have increased the usage of both. I realize that
phones are more difficult for law enforcement officials to spot, as
compared to seat belts and helmets so I suppose there will be plenty of
scofflaws.

I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".

Maybe so, but I have to believe that cellphones are an undesirable
distraction to anyone while driving. I remember once when I was standing in
line in the little corner grocery store in my building. Some guy came in
while talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone. By the way he looked
around, I knew right away that he was looking for the cash machine. I
watched him walk around the store looking for it while still talking on the
phone. He passed by it three times before I pointed it out to him. If he'd
have been driving a car at the time, I'd have run for cover.

Upscale wrote:



Maybe so, but I have to believe that cellphones are an undesirable
distraction to anyone while driving.

What I find interesting is the range of ability to divide attention.

On one hand, there are the people who can be in the here and now first,
while talking on the phone second. On the other, are the folks who
simply cannot do ANYTHING ELSE while they talk.

The type and content of the conversation itself can move most people up
or down the scale. Having enough self awareness to know when we've
gotten into the latter category is key.

If more folks could recognize, and/or accept where they fall on the
scale, I'll bet we wouldn't need more laws.

People who lean towards the scary category can get in trouble simply
conversing with a passenger or listening to talk radio. They don't even
need a phone.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:55:37 -0700, David wrote:


While no law will achieve 100% compliance, a no-phone-while-driving law
would certainly curtail much of the gabbing, just like mandatory seat
belt and helmet laws have increased the usage of both. I realize that
phones are more difficult for law enforcement officials to spot, as
compared to seat belts and helmets so I suppose there will be plenty of
scofflaws.


I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.

Actually, I see drivers on cell phones while I'm sitting at an
intersection. they aren't all driving badly, but nearly every young
female driver is on a phone. I'm in CA. maybe it's not as bad
elsewhere in the country??

Dave

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:55:37 -0700, David wrote:


While no law will achieve 100% compliance, a no-phone-while-driving law
would certainly curtail much of the gabbing, just like mandatory seat
belt and helmet laws have increased the usage of both. I realize that
phones are more difficult for law enforcement officials to spot, as
compared to seat belts and helmets so I suppose there will be plenty of
scofflaws.


I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.

If it's "not the tool", how come we aren't allowed to carry loaded
firearms in public? See what happens if you have a loaded gun in
sight when stopped by a police officer... Some conveniences like phones
cause much frustration and harm. ever tried to enjoy a quiet dinner
with the wife in an otherwise cozy restaurant, only to have the mood
broken by some loud mouthed bozo yakking away on his phone in the next
booth?

Dave

Upscale wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".


Maybe so, but I have to believe that cellphones are an undesirable
distraction to anyone while driving. I remember once when I was standing in
line in the little corner grocery store in my building. Some guy came in
while talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone. By the way he looked
around, I knew right away that he was looking for the cash machine. I
watched him walk around the store looking for it while still talking on the
phone. He passed by it three times before I pointed it out to him. If he'd
have been driving a car at the time, I'd have run for cover.


or how about when the light turns green and the clueless driver ahead of
you sits stock still, engaged in conversation?

Dave

B a r r y wrote:

Upscale wrote:



Maybe so, but I have to believe that cellphones are an undesirable
distraction to anyone while driving.


What I find interesting is the range of ability to divide attention.

On one hand, there are the people who can be in the here and now first,
while talking on the phone second. On the other, are the folks who
simply cannot do ANYTHING ELSE while they talk.

The type and content of the conversation itself can move most people up
or down the scale. Having enough self awareness to know when we've
gotten into the latter category is key.

If more folks could recognize, and/or accept where they fall on the
scale, I'll bet we wouldn't need more laws.

People who lean towards the scary category can get in trouble simply
conversing with a passenger or listening to talk radio. They don't even
need a phone.
when I get in heavy traffic, I've often asked my wife to be quiet, so I
can concentrate. She's learned I'm not being rude; just prudent.

Dave

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:11:46 -0700, David wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.

If it's "not the tool", how come we aren't allowed to carry loaded
firearms in public?

In most civilized states, that specific thing _is_ allowed, and it has
reduced violent crime in every one of them.

See what happens if you have a loaded gun in
sight when stopped by a police officer...

Depends on if you're in an open-carry state, I guess? (shrug)

ever tried to enjoy a quiet dinner
with the wife in an otherwise cozy restaurant, only to have the mood
broken by some loud mouthed bozo yakking away on his phone in the next
booth?

There's another example. That guy is a rude loudmouth, regardless of
the fact that he's on a cellphone. The phone didn't turn him _into_ a
rude loudmouth.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:49:25 -0500, Patriarch
wrote:

David wrote in
:



The only one I can control is me. If you find the cell phone
distracting, let the call roll to voicemail, have a passenger take the
call, or pull over safely. I think that what I do behind the wheel is
the major factor in the safety of my trip, regardless of the driving
habits of the others around me.

As to influencing the behavior of young women, that's an area in which I
have very little track record of success...

Patriarch


We may be putting to much on cell phone use. Is that really any more
distractiong than one of those "100 button" CD player/radios or a
satellite navigation system?
The heater A/C has become a mind boggling thing to run.
New car dash boards look like the bridge of the star ship enterprise
these days.
Add a cup of hot coffee, a cigarette, an Egg McMuffin and two
screaming kids in the back seat ... it's no wonder we need air bags.

Nope.

While there are certainly bad drivers that don't use phones, ANY telephone
usage, including ear phones and speaker phones, dramatically reduces ANY
driver's attention, and ultimately, ability. It's not the instrument,
itself, it's the nature of the activity. Listening to the radio is
essentially a passive activity. By it's very nature, talking on a phone is
an active distraction and ironically, the more important the phone call, the
greater the distraction.

It's not gender-specific or age-specific, either. Anyone talking on a phone
and driving a car is not devoting the appropriate amount attention to either
activity.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:55:37 -0700, David wrote:


While no law will achieve 100% compliance, a no-phone-while-driving law
would certainly curtail much of the gabbing, just like mandatory seat
belt and helmet laws have increased the usage of both. I realize that
phones are more difficult for law enforcement officials to spot, as
compared to seat belts and helmets so I suppose there will be plenty of
scofflaws.


I'm guessing that you only notice the cellphone users who are driving
badly; the ones who aren't, you don't see, because they're _not_. So,
maybe it's a case of "bad drivers are bad drivers" rather than "a
cellphone makes a good driver become a bad driver".

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.


Personally I notice a lot more than just bad drivers talking on the cell
while driving. What I think of most often is when you see a
mother/father or even worse both in a car with a kid, two or three going
down the road and the parent(s) is babbling away when they could, or
in my opinion should, be interacting with their children. Playing word
games, alphabet on the signs, "how was your day johnny?", and so on. Of
course no one knows if they already had these conversations, the call is
a brief one and interupting the word games, and so on. That said it
seems more an more with in car TV, DVDs, cell, etc. parent/child
interaction is taking a back seat to a peaceful car ride or a call from
the office.

I have always thought they should offer a cheaper option than the in car
DVD player. An IV bag could simply hang on the dry cleaning hook in the
car/SUV and just jack your kids into a slow drip of morphine. Tie a
diaper around their chin to catch the droole from landing on the leather
seats and just drive til' your hearts content. It would surely be
cheaper than a in car DVD and lets face it, it would serve the same
exact purpose.


Mark

I hope to God that I'M using a tablesaw at 70.

Father is still using one at 72, and I'll admit that he doesnt' have
much stamina. But he can still rip timber. Just not much at a time.

I'm planning on being a woodworking geezer into my 80's.

Bill

Amused wrote:

....
... Anyone talking on a phone
and driving a car is not devoting the appropriate amount attention to either
activity.

But whether it's more or less than appropriate depends on which
activity, methinks...

wrote:
I hope to God that I'M using a tablesaw at 70.

Father is still using one at 72, and I'll admit that he doesnt' have
much stamina. But he can still rip timber. Just not much at a time.

I'm planning on being a woodworking geezer into my 80's.

Bill


My Dad will turn 82 this next month. Been living alone since his
wife passed away in Jan.2001. This last June, he calls and tells me to
come get his tools, he has sold his house and is moving into an assisted
living facility. So I rent a big van and drive out to Arizona from Iowa
and get him settled and the van loaded with all his tools. Now let me
tell you that this van is squatting when we are finished loading it, it
is full.
Two weeks ago I get this letter from my Dad telling me he has found
love again with a woman about 60 years old living in the same facility
and they have a lot in common, been dating up a storm, blah, blah, blah.
Now I just know that they are gonna get married, settle down, buy a
house together and Dad will want his tools back.
Well, I will have room in *my* shop again.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:33:36 -0500, "Amused"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:49:25 -0500, Patriarch
wrote:

David wrote in
:



The only one I can control is me. If you find the cell phone
distracting, let the call roll to voicemail, have a passenger take the
call, or pull over safely. I think that what I do behind the wheel is
the major factor in the safety of my trip, regardless of the driving
habits of the others around me.

As to influencing the behavior of young women, that's an area in which I
have very little track record of success...

Patriarch


We may be putting to much on cell phone use. Is that really any more
distractiong than one of those "100 button" CD player/radios or a
satellite navigation system?
The heater A/C has become a mind boggling thing to run.
New car dash boards look like the bridge of the star ship enterprise
these days.
Add a cup of hot coffee, a cigarette, an Egg McMuffin and two
screaming kids in the back seat ... it's no wonder we need air bags.

Nope.

While there are certainly bad drivers that don't use phones, ANY telephone
usage, including ear phones and speaker phones, dramatically reduces ANY
driver's attention, and ultimately, ability. It's not the instrument,
itself, it's the nature of the activity. Listening to the radio is
essentially a passive activity. By it's very nature, talking on a phone is
an active distraction and ironically, the more important the phone call, the
greater the distraction.

It's not gender-specific or age-specific, either. Anyone talking on a phone
and driving a car is not devoting the appropriate amount attention to either
activity.


... and how do you separate this as being any different from being
engaged in a conversation with a passenger in the automobile? That also is
an active vs. passive activity. Do you really want to go down the path of
making the car a sterile environment?





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 26 Sep 2005 19:23:09 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:11:46 -0700, David wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

As with so many other things, it's the person, not the tool, that
determines good or bad.

If it's "not the tool", how come we aren't allowed to carry loaded
firearms in public?

In most civilized states, that specific thing _is_ allowed, and it has
reduced violent crime in every one of them.

See what happens if you have a loaded gun in
sight when stopped by a police officer...

Depends on if you're in an open-carry state, I guess? (shrug)

ever tried to enjoy a quiet dinner
with the wife in an otherwise cozy restaurant, only to have the mood
broken by some loud mouthed bozo yakking away on his phone in the next
booth?

There's another example. That guy is a rude loudmouth, regardless of
the fact that he's on a cellphone. The phone didn't turn him _into_ a
rude loudmouth.

... and if he were sitting with someone else and without a cell phone,
you would get to hear his loud, obnoxious conversation with his dining
companion (BTDT).

OTOH, it does seem that a lot of people tend to speak much more loudly
when using a cell phone than when engaged in normal conversation.


IMO, we really don't need more laws, what we need is more training in
proper etiquette and being polite around others. The old fashioned virtues
of being concerned about what the other person thinks about us, not making
others wait because we are engaged in some activity that will cause them to
have to delay for us (even if they only "have to slow down for 30 seconds"
to go around us - remember that's not *your* 30 seconds of their time to
waste), remembering that others are sensitive to sights, sound, and smells
(and I'm not just talking perfume here -- I'd rather smell perfume than
unwashed body any day), and all of those other little things that make a
civilized society, well, civilized.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
... and how do you separate this as being any different from being
engaged in a conversation with a passenger in the automobile? That also is
an active vs. passive activity. Do you really want to go down the path
of
making the car a sterile environment?

Big differences really. If I'm listening to the radio or talking with a
passenger, I can just tune them out or not reply when my attention is needed
on the road. Phone conversations though, tend to take more concentration
and the phone user is less likely to mentally swap brain power to the road
ahead while they are giving tech support, taking an order, getting
instructions, etc.

The passenger may even see the upcoming traffic, the sudden turn, the big
splash from a truck and actually shut up knowing you need to concentrate on
driving. The phone caller does not see any of that.

Many of us look at our cars as our private space to do as we please. Eat
breakfast, read the paper,shave, make sales calls, all while trying to
drive. Some of these tasks take more attention than others. Traffic and
road conditions vary too, but not everyone puts away the phone when they are
severe.

US phone companies will not give up their call records, but a study was done
inAustrailia that showed an increase in accident rates for phone users.
This was published in the Hartford Courant a couple of months ago. I don't
think they should be banned, but drivers must use a lot of caution and
common sense and know when to put the phone away.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:33:36 -0500, "Amused"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:49:25 -0500, Patriarch
wrote:

David wrote in
:



The only one I can control is me. If you find the cell phone
distracting, let the call roll to voicemail, have a passenger take the
call, or pull over safely. I think that what I do behind the wheel is
the major factor in the safety of my trip, regardless of the driving
habits of the others around me.

As to influencing the behavior of young women, that's an area in which I
have very little track record of success...

Patriarch


We may be putting to much on cell phone use. Is that really any more
distractiong than one of those "100 button" CD player/radios or a
satellite navigation system?
The heater A/C has become a mind boggling thing to run.
New car dash boards look like the bridge of the star ship enterprise
these days.
Add a cup of hot coffee, a cigarette, an Egg McMuffin and two
screaming kids in the back seat ... it's no wonder we need air bags.

Nope.

While there are certainly bad drivers that don't use phones, ANY telephone
usage, including ear phones and speaker phones, dramatically reduces ANY
driver's attention, and ultimately, ability. It's not the instrument,
itself, it's the nature of the activity. Listening to the radio is
essentially a passive activity. By it's very nature, talking on a phone
is
an active distraction and ironically, the more important the phone call,
the
greater the distraction.

It's not gender-specific or age-specific, either. Anyone talking on a
phone
and driving a car is not devoting the appropriate amount attention to
either
activity.


... and how do you separate this as being any different from being
engaged in a conversation with a passenger in the automobile? That also is
an active vs. passive activity. Do you really want to go down the path
of
making the car a sterile environment?

Sterile?

I drove a medical transport van for six years around a large-ish Midwestern
city. (Non-emergency. No lights. No siren).

I've personally witnessed people blowing right through red lights and stop
signs while they were obviously engaged in telephone conversations. I saw
one lady that drove up over the curb(!), and the look of surprise when she
found herself in the median was priceless. I've seen people drift across
lanes on high-speed expressways, obviously more engaged in their
conversation rather than driving. I've seen any number of near collisions
(and a couple of actual collisions) when an unexpected showdown occurs and
following drivers were slow to react.

Any number of times, I've personally witnessed one of the MOST dangerous
situations, and that's someone stopped at red light, totally engaged in
conversation to the point that they never notice when the light changes
green. They sit, 'till someone blasts their horn, then they, involuntarily,
slam the gas pedal down, charging across/into the intersection, without ever
looking to see if that green light is now yellow, or even red.

When I started driving the van, I would chatter on my cell phone as much as
anyone. Slowly, it became apparent that me that I (a trained, specially
licensed, highly experienced driver) was every bit as distracted by the cell
phone as anyone else. I no longer talk on the phone and drive at the same
time. If the conversation is important to make the phone call, it's
important enough for me to give it my full attention, and pull out of
traffic.....

If the conversation is not important enough to pull out of traffic, it's not
important enough to have in the first place. (Part of the problem, I'd
surmise, is that you'll never be able to predict in any conversation, when
something is said that literally demands your full attention, for whatever
reason. I'd also advance the idea that with the increase in just plain
scary drivers, there has been a corresponding increasing in frustrated
drivers, i.e. road rage.)

And yes, I've seen people that were also distracted by....

Changing CD's/or radio stations...
Reading papers across their steering wheel....
Putting on makeup...
Arguing with kids...especially in the back seat.
Cleaning their glasses...blind
Drunk...
Stoned...
Incompetent/daydreaming

But for sheer volume of poor/dangerous driving practices...nothing (with the
possible exception of driving drunk) rivals the cell phone. People talking
on a cell phone are every bit as imparted as a drunk driver.

In article , says...
IMO, we really don't need more laws, what we need is more training in
proper etiquette and being polite around others.

I thought it was liberals who believed in mankind's perfectibility? grin

IOW, it'll never happen. Even in past days, those "old-fashioned virtues" only held
sway among the middle and upper classes.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:40:15 -0400, wrote:

We may be putting to much on cell phone use. Is that really any more
distractiong than one of those "100 button" CD player/radios or a
satellite navigation system?
The heater A/C has become a mind boggling thing to run.
New car dash boards look like the bridge of the star ship enterprise
these days.
Add a cup of hot coffee, a cigarette, an Egg McMuffin and two
screaming kids in the back seat ... it's no wonder we need air bags.

How much have accident rates risen in the last few years?

I drop my kids off at school daily and I estimate that at least a
third if not more of the drivers are on their cell phones throughout
the whole process. (my question is "who do you call at 7:00 in the
morning for a long chat?") If driving while on your cell phone is as
dangerous as all the research indicates we should be seeing dramatic
increases in accident rates.

No harm, no foul.

I don't have quick access to those statistics, but I am guessing that
if there really was a significant increase it would be all over the
news. Human beings really are remarkably good at multi-tasking.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:23:46 -0700, lgb wrote:

In article , says...
IMO, we really don't need more laws, what we need is more training in
proper etiquette and being polite around others.

I thought it was liberals who believed in mankind's perfectibility? grin

IOW, it'll never happen. Even in past days, those "old-fashioned virtues" only held
sway among the middle and upper classes.

I'm not arguing for "perfectability", but when you look around you, our
society is much more crude than it was even 1 generation ago. There may
have been pockets of such crudity in earlier times, but this has become the
norm rather than the exception in our society.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Tim Douglass wrote in
:

I don't have quick access to those statistics, but I am guessing that
if there really was a significant increase it would be all over the
news. Human beings really are remarkably good at multi-tasking.



I don't have access to the stats either .. but I've seen a couple of
pretty well controlled experimental studies. The one that sticks out in
my mind was done with drivers on a closed track, and sensors to monitor
head and eye position.

The drivers did the course with no/minimal distraction, then while
talking casually on the phone, then while being asked over the phone to
do some very simple calculations.

The difference in awareness (by virtue of eye movement) was pretty
remarkable.

My takeaway? There's alot of 'close calls' (pun intended) caused by cell
phone use. (And other distraction, too -- radio, kids in the backseat,
what-have-you).

Me, -- I don't talk on the cell while driving; and since my safety
depends at least somewhat on the ability of those driving around me -- I
don't think they should be either.

--
Regards,

JT
Speaking only for myself....

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:59:18 +0000 (UTC), John Thomas
wrote:

Tim Douglass wrote in
:

I don't have quick access to those statistics, but I am guessing that
if there really was a significant increase it would be all over the
news. Human beings really are remarkably good at multi-tasking.



I don't have access to the stats either .. but I've seen a couple of
pretty well controlled experimental studies. The one that sticks out in
my mind was done with drivers on a closed track, and sensors to monitor
head and eye position.

The drivers did the course with no/minimal distraction, then while
talking casually on the phone, then while being asked over the phone to
do some very simple calculations.

The difference in awareness (by virtue of eye movement) was pretty
remarkable.

My takeaway? There's alot of 'close calls' (pun intended) caused by cell
phone use. (And other distraction, too -- radio, kids in the backseat,
what-have-you).

Me, -- I don't talk on the cell while driving; and since my safety
depends at least somewhat on the ability of those driving around me -- I
don't think they should be either.

Controlled tests are all very fine, but if they don't actually
translate into the real world they don't mean anything. I'll go out on
a limb here and guess that the people who are badly distracted by
talking on the cell phone are simply substituting one distraction for
another. They would be just as distracted if they were in a sterile
driving environment with no outside interference - they'd just be
focusing their attention on the nice load of QSWO in the back of the
truck instead of their driving.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

In article , Tim Douglass
wrote:

I'll go out on
a limb here and guess that the people who are badly distracted by
talking on the cell phone are simply substituting one distraction for
another. They would be just as distracted if they were in a sterile
driving environment with no outside interference - they'd just be
focusing their attention on the nice load of QSWO in the back of the
truck instead of their driving.

If you're driving and looking for an unfamiliar address, do you turn
the volume on the radio/stereo down?

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who