O/T: Gotta Love It

Page 4 of 8  


What?
Hello?
Hel-lo??
Hel-LOooo??
Crap.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2009 7:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

You know, I thought about using something other than "undivided attention", but I decided to leave it in just to see how many people would call me on it. :-)
Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at 28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example). If a careful and alert driver deems the risk factor to be low enough, many can give the act of driving all the attention it needs yet still have plenty of brain capacity left over for other things; other people, not so much. For some, anything other than their "undivided attention" would make them an unsafe driver.

I only used that as one example of the zillion things that drivers do *instead* of paying attention to the road. All I'm saying is that some people are such idiots they can't even have a simple conversation with a passenger without weaving all over the road.

Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from doing so.

Teenagers have been inventing new and outrageous ways to get themselves killed on the highway for decades.

By leaving the line where it is and enforcing the existing careless and imprudent driving laws.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner

IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's time:
When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that you've lost the debate.
Bravo!!!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:

Oh, you're a real sharp tack. I didn't call *anybody* involved in this "debate" an idiot (though with you I'm getting pretty close). The "idiot" in this case (and let me just repaste the relevant context that you snipped) is the guy "in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give detailed technical support to a customer". If you disagree with me that this guy's operating in an idiotic fashion, then perhaps your argument for banning his use of a cell phone just disappeared into thin air, no?
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hm.
No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ... since ... you just did it (again?) :-)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:14 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks

Hope it doesn't put you off. Name calling and insinuations are fairly common. Hell, I specialize in name calling. If I couldn't do it, I'd be cut off at the knees. :)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:

Do you know how to read? You certainly seem able to snip things that don't play into your "argument"...
--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exceptionally well. Thank you!

Your argument.
I was interested in a discussion.
Carry on.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.

No you're not. You're being a dick.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ouch.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner

Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that *you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough brain power left over for something else.
The real fact is that no one, not even your Mario Andretti example is capable of being aware of everything around them when they're driving. There's just too many things that can happen. There are people however that are much more aware than others. They are the safer driver.
It's like taking martial arts training. As you progress through the ranks, you gain additional awareness of what is happening around you and that gives you greater control in a given situation. But, even the top ranked in martial arts will admit that no one knows it all, there's always something additional to learn. Driving can be considered the same way. It's common sense.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

What the hell does that even mean? You have no idea how aware I am of my surroundings when I'm driving. I *know* my awareness is as good as it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a clean driving slate for 15 over years, I'm sure statistics will "prove" that my use of a cellphone on the road makes me an unsafe driver.

Oh yeah; that safer driver? That's me. Does that earn me the right to use my cellphone when *I* deem it to be safe? No, I didn't think so.

I see. Since nobody can ever be perfect, I guess nobody can ever be trusted to operate a cellphone in motor vehicle in a responsible fashion. What about all those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner

Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up for discussion.
I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by regular drivers is what should be targeted.
I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for everybody, no matter who you are?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That, I have heard and also that there's a move in Ontario underway (or might already be in effect) to limit the number of hours they can drive.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My dad was an over the road driver in the '50s.
Limits on driving hours were in effect back then.
Only one problem.
If you drove legal, you starved.
A driver's log book and a salesman's expense account have something in common.
Both are examples of The Great American Novel.
Lew
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

They do have limits per day and per week. Enforcing them is another problem though. Good drivers are adept at keeping multiple sets of logs.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GPS is/will change that. I see more and more GPS antenna's on tractors these days. There is no way to fake those numbers.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2009 1:26 AM, snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Why should anything be "targeted"? How about we enforce the existing laws on the books rather than making up new ones?

We've all seen cases of people doing stupid things on the road that we perceive to be a direct result of "distractions", cellphone use included. However, I've also seen *countless* cases of people using cellphones that were driving courteously and responsibly, signaling their intentions, and obeying all the laws of the road. This counts for nothing? Where are the statistics that reflect _this_ mysterious phenomenon? Unless a "moving violation" (as defined by existing laws) has occurred, what exactly is the problem? We're looking at making it illegal for drivers to be affected by a certain type of distraction that *might* cause a real infraction to occur, while pretending that no other types of distractions exists. How about we focus on catching drivers *actually committing* moving violations, and punishing them accordingly? I wouldn't be adverse to additional levels of punishment if it turns out the infraction was committed because of "impairments" such as cellphone use (or getting a BJ, or air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has actually occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then there is the allocation of law enforcement resources. When a cop is giving you a ticket for using your cell-phone, how many idiots blast by his ass at 2 times the speed limit? They just diluted the cop:violations ratio. If you keep adding violations, you have to keep adding cops. Adding cops is good for the economy as do-nut shops are the new cornerstone of our expanding economy.
It really legitimizes that old phrase: "Don't you have some criminals to catch?"
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.