On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:21:52 -0500, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.

THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.

I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

It's 85%, not 50.


And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Makes a person all teary-eyed.

SPSB.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:11:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Dec 30, 8:21*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"

Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.

THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.

I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.

One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
devices in the asshat's ear.

You'll yawn and stretch on your way by them, "accidentally" throwing a
swift elbow into the greentooth's ear with the bluetooth in it, eh?
I like it!

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Dec 31, 1:01*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:11:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:





On Dec 30, 8:21*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"

Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.

THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.

I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.

One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
devices in the asshat's ear.

You'll yawn and stretch on your way by them, "accidentally" throwing a
swift elbow into the greentooth's ear with the bluetooth in it, eh?
I like it!

--
* Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
* * * * * Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

That, or do a Laurel & Hardy-style turn...with a board on my shoulder.
6 feet of 3/4" x 6" oak oughtta do it? "Oops..didn't see ya!...what's
that blue light inside your ear?"
"I have heard of people who had ringing in their ears...but yours is
BEEEEPING!!!"

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
cases?

Slower.

Before the telegraph cables were laid across the Atlantic, how did
governments communicate between Europe and North America?

Slower.

Cell phones and email just allow us to share information faster.

As for the "cell phones while driving" sub thread, we have the "fine
and points" law going into effect here Jan 1. Personally, I'd rather
have the right to mount high energy lasers or surface to surface
missiles in my vehicle and simple take out most of the assholes on the
road,

That's my preference, too.


but the courts here seem to not want to deal with grey areas like
"driving without due care and attention" so our lawmakers are having to
give the cops specific, non-negotiable offence to deal with the
dip****s on the road.

Well, at least they're starting to take care of it. I went into a
MANN theater several years back and the girl introducing the movie
(not a normal thing in most theaters) asked everyone to pull out their
phones. She gave them a few seconds and then asked them to turn them
completely off so everyone else could enjoy the movie. She explained
that she said "OFF" because she knew that when they were set to
"vibrate", the nice cell owner would take the call and be talking all
the way out to the lobby.

That got some really loud applause from us folks who didn't use cell
phones. I just wish that happened at every theater and gathering.


Here the joke is "young woman on a cell phone in a Sunfire", except is
ISN'T a joke.

The bonus is that they're most of who I see in the ditch when we get a
bit of blowing snow and icy roads.

That's kinda satisfying, isn't it?


I still want my lasers...

You betcha! How about side-aimed lasers under the car to take out the
tires on a car you're passing who held up the line 30-deep on a 2-lane
highway?

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:20:47 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.

Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.

That's when you take a pad and pencil and note all the distractions,
daily. Hand it to him when he rails on you or the staff for not
getting things done.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:00:27 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.

I think you misunderstand. The statement "using a cell phone while
driving is as dangerous as driving drunk" is based on a series of
comparative studies done under controlled conditions. The actual
accident statistics are a separate issue and are somewhat interesting
in themselves, although not nearly as hype-worthy. If you look at
accident causes you will see that over that last several years the
accident rate has remained essentially flat, but you will also find
that there is an increasing number of accidents attributed to cell
phone use. I'm not denying that there are risks associated with the
distraction of talking on a cell phone, but it appears from the
statistics that the risk is replacing other risks in causing
accidents. In other words, those who are easily distracted while
driving are going to be distracted - whether from a cell phone or from
their stereo or from their burger or whatever. This leads me to the
assertion that the hype is misleading in regard to reality and that
the reality is much more complex than the media and special interest
groups would like us to believe.

He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.

There are both controlled tests and statistical evidence. The two do
not produce the same conclusions when taken in context and then
extrapolated to the total population. Therefore the issue is much more
difficult to evaluate than "using a cell phone while driving is as
dangerous as driving drunk".

Obviously, you're biased.

Yes. I dealt with my drinking problems many years ago and don't drink
at all any more, but back in the day I did a fair share of driving
drunk. I currently do quite a bit of talking on my cell phone while
driving, albeit mostly with a headset. I can pretty confidently assure
you that talking on a cell phone while driving is nowhere near as
dangerous as driving drunk.

YMMV, as always.
Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Well, at least they're starting to take care of it. I went into a
MANN theater several years back and the girl introducing the movie
(not a normal thing in most theaters) asked everyone to pull out their
phones. She gave them a few seconds and then asked them to turn them
completely off so everyone else could enjoy the movie. She explained
that she said "OFF" because she knew that when they were set to
"vibrate", the nice cell owner would take the call and be talking all
the way out to the lobby.


Around here, they have a different way of dealing with cell phones and
conversation in a movie theater. They turn the volume up so high that you
would have to yell to be heard. I don't go to movies anymore. Don't want to
have to wear earplugs for 2.5 hours.

On 12/31/2009 4:05 PM, CW wrote:

I don't go to movies anymore. Don't
want to have to wear earplugs for 2.5 hours.

Hell, I don't either ... but because I don't want to have to take out a
loan for popcorn and drinks for two.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:18:37 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

I still want my lasers...

I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).

I'll accept that as an interim measure.

;-)

While fun, it wouldn't take them off the road. At the least, please
install undercar lasers to give 'em flats, OK?

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:23:14 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

How about side-aimed lasers under the car to take out the
tires on a car you're passing who held up the line 30-deep on a 2-lane
highway?

Or the asshole who's been riding my tail when I'm already doing 10 kph
over limit as he decides to pass on a double-yellow.

Whenever anyone gets too close to me, I tap the brakes, then slow down
and pull over as far as possible, hand out the window waving them on.
Life's too short to get rear ended by some brainless dolt.

Then again, it's usually me passing the slow jerk.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:57:33 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 12/31/2009 4:05 PM, CW wrote:

I don't go to movies anymore. Don't
want to have to wear earplugs for 2.5 hours.

Hell, I don't either ... but because I don't want to have to take out a
loan for popcorn and drinks for two.

I take a big coat with deep, deep pockets, even in the heat of summer.
Nobody's gonna take my handpopped (nuked) popcorn away from me.

My niece talked me into going to see Avatar last week. There were
only 10 people, including us, in the theater. It was great! $6 each,
so it didn't break the bank. I took a baggie of beef jerky and we
split it.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:32:35 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
huh?

If I'm out in the country on a long trip, and there isn't other traffic,
I've been known to sip a bit of coffee which my wife pours out of a
thermos. Only about 1/4 of a cup so it won't spill if I hit a pothole.

Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being thirsty
too often.

But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
well as five years as a full time RVer.

So it works for me. YMMV.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....

dhall987 wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard
Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being
thirsty too often.

But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.

So it works for me. YMMV.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....

Back when I was a kid, about 1956, a friend's mother drove us to the movies
one afternoon. We had to sit in the back seat and were not allowed to talk
while she drove.

While I strongly am against driving distracted, the radio is on most all the
time, I've eaten a burger or breakfast sandwich if traffic allows a couple
of times a year. Most important, I keep one hand on the wheel at all times.
Well, a few fingers from one hand at all times.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

.... snip

(New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
have traded some more carbon credits.)

You sure he isn't coming up there to give a speech or hold a climate
summit? That's the usual weather phenomenon associated with those events.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
well as five years as a full time RVer.

So it works for me. YMMV.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit safer
in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just doesn't
seem worth it....

So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's
fault. And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago
surface streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.

So it works for me. YMMV.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....

So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?

No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison. Some
people just have problems that way--Isaac Asimov didn't go to the convention
where he got his fourth or fifth Hugo because sitting on the train from NY
to Miami was too stressful for him (and _forget_ about flying).

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Dave Balderstone wrote:

... snip

(New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
have traded some more carbon credits.)

You sure he isn't coming up there to give a speech or hold a climate
summit? That's the usual weather phenomenon associated with those events.

You mean a blast of hot air?

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....

So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?

No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison.

I agree. But either "dhall987" was equating that behavior to my post on
driving, or he was off on a tangent that had no point.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:25:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.

Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....

So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?

No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison.

I agree. But either "dhall987" was equating that behavior to my post on
driving, or he was off on a tangent that had no point.

Clearly I was equating having to suck a hard candy to escape thirst
while driving or actually not being able to listen to the radio and
drive at the same time and defining that as a requirement for "driving
attentively" as being similar to deciding to force oneself to stay in
their home for 15 years in order to avoid normal dangers that do, in
fact, exist outside the home. I do not feel that I was on any tangent
or that I had no point. It seems to be the type of extremism that
keeps valid safety laws (like no texting while driving) from being
passed. Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive. I have a decent OEM stereo in my truck and actually
play it while I drive. I have even been known to eat a potato chip or
even a sandwich while driving down interstate. So yes, I do think that
taking an extreme position on absolutely no "distractions" (as you
have defined them) while drviing to be a mild to middling phobia.

dhall987 wrote:

Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive.

It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable to
pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.

In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open container
as long as it is not the driver's.

On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:

Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive.

It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable to
pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.

In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open container
as long as it is not the driver's.

Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone laws
are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to catch the
perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain sight; never
mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a cellphone doesn't
prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer before
I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and not be
"impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly along the way
I'm in violation.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote:

On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:

Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive.

It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable
to pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.

In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open
container as long as it is not the driver's.

Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone
laws
are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to
catch the perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain
sight; never mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a
cellphone doesn't
prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer
before I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and
not be "impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly
along the way I'm in violation.


When I first moved to Texas years ago, it was an open container state; one
could drink while driving, you just couldn't drive while impaired. Having
come from Colorado, a state where that was against the law, I was initially
amazed. However, it didn't seem to be a major contributing factor to any
worse statistics than elsewhere. I know that they enacted an open container
law several years later. Not sure if it was driven by statistics or by
federal fiat threatening the loss of highway funds.

FWIW, I very seldom (less than one glass of wine every 6 months or more)
drink, can't stand even the smell of beer (it tastes like stale bread to
me), so I don't have a dog in this fight other than keeping those who are
really impaired off the road.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...

I can chug a beer before I walk out the door on my way to the store to
pick up some milk and not be "impaired" by any measure of the law,

Not me. I'd have to pee before I got out of the driveway. That's
impaired - trust me...

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:04:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Steve Turner wrote:

On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:

Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive.

It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable
to pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.

In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open
container as long as it is not the driver's.

Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone
laws
are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to
catch the perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain
sight; never mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a
cellphone doesn't
prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer
before I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and
not be "impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly
along the way I'm in violation.


When I first moved to Texas years ago, it was an open container state; one
could drink while driving, you just couldn't drive while impaired. Having
come from Colorado, a state where that was against the law, I was initially
amazed. However, it didn't seem to be a major contributing factor to any
worse statistics than elsewhere. I know that they enacted an open container
law several years later. Not sure if it was driven by statistics or by
federal fiat threatening the loss of highway funds.

VT had allowed anyone other than the driver to have an open container.
The feds *did* use the highway funds as a lever to force them to
change (as well as the seatbelt laws). I used to drive a carload of
friends down to Saratoga every year and they'd drink on the way back.

FWIW, I very seldom (less than one glass of wine every 6 months or more)
drink, can't stand even the smell of beer (it tastes like stale bread to
me), so I don't have a dog in this fight other than keeping those who are
really impaired off the road.

On 1/2/2010 7:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...

I can chug a beer before I walk out the door on my way to the store to
pick up some milk and not be "impaired" by any measure of the law,

Not me. I'd have to pee before I got out of the driveway. That's
impaired - trust me...

LOL! No argument from me on that one. :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:39:10 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

Clearly I was equating having to suck a hard candy to escape thirst
while driving or actually not being able to listen to the radio and
drive at the same time and defining that as a requirement for "driving
attentively" as being similar to deciding to force oneself to stay in
their home for 15 years in order to avoid normal dangers that do, in
fact, exist outside the home. I do not feel that I was on any tangent
or that I had no point. It seems to be the type of extremism that
keeps valid safety laws (like no texting while driving) from being
passed. Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive. I have a decent OEM stereo in my truck and actually
play it while I drive. I have even been known to eat a potato chip or
even a sandwich while driving down interstate. So yes, I do think that
taking an extreme position on absolutely no "distractions" (as you
have defined them) while drviing to be a mild to middling phobia.

Funny thing is that on a long drive you are probably more attentive
and less accident-prone if you have some snacks and a slurp of coffee
or something while you are driving. Except in dense traffic areas
driving does not engage anything like a majority of your cognitive
functions, so the mind tends to wander. I am much more attentive in
light, open-road travel if I am talking to someone than if I am just
watching the dotted lines go by.

It's not as simple as everyone wants to make it....

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:

My dad was an over the road
driver back in the 50s.

Can not remember the number of times he advised me:

"Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."

At my age, 100 miles between **** stops is too far!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:37:19 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:

My dad was an over the road
driver back in the 50s.

Can not remember the number of times he advised me:

"Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."

At my age, 100 miles between **** stops is too far!

I'd comment but I'm pleading the 5th.

--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine