O/T: Gotta Love It

Page 5 of 8  
On 12/28/2009 2:17 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Perzactly.
--
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
Robatoy wrote:

Wow, I actually agree with Robatoy on something. [back at ya' :-) ]
--

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

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However the revenue:cop ratio goes up as the increased number of possible violations means less idle time per cop. Oh, wait! The official position is that the laws are not for generating revenue. Never mind. Art
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:37:37 -0600, Steve Turner

I'm in Toronto, Canada and I've actually viewed the pulling of people over for cell phone use. A grace period has been enacted until Feb 1, 2010 when actual fines of up to $500 will be given. And in addition to that, police also have the ability to lay careless and dangerous driving charges. It's certainly not a feel good law, at least not here. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091025/Cellphone_Ban_091025/20091025/?site_codename=Toronto
As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway at all if I go to the effort of digging up actual statistics that cell phone use while driving increases the chance of an accident? Or, will you continue to insist that your personal opinion on cell phone use is all that matters?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2009 4:34 PM, snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Get a warm feeling of satisfaction from that, did you?

Oh? They didn't have that ability already? I wonder how many of the people you saw getting pulled over were actually cited for such infractions...

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091025/Cellphone_Ban_091025/20091025/?site_codename=Toronto
Oh, I'd imagine a whole bunch of people feel all warm and fuzzy inside now that this law has been passed. Hooray for us! We've saved the world from the evil cellphone talkers! Thank gawd, the accident rate will finally go down! How's about you send me *those* statistics once it's been "proven" that this law is doing the job it was designed to do?

Oh, I'd wager I'm far from alone in my opinion.
--
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
Steve Turner wrote:

People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know. It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/29/2009 10:34 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

No, it's people like YOU who think that numbers and statistics can classify what kind of person I am and what my abilities are. *I've* never done *anything* to warrant this law being used against me, nor will I, because I am a responsible law-abiding citizen.

And I am NOT that person, so why don't you punish them, not me?
--
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:

I'll grab that one.
I've never spilled a Coke inside of Banana Republic (or ... wherever), yet ... somebody did, and ... because that somebody did ... I can't come into their store with food or beverages.
Ah, well.
It's called "Living Among Other People."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"

Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you think so?

And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this bother you so much?
--

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

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:34 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita

They have and are, Mark. Ask any savvy insurance guy. Also, cops are notorious drivers, despite the extra high-speed training...if they got it. It's too expensive for most cities nowadays. Cops are one of the worst sets of distracted drivers. Check their stats. It's scary. While you're there, check their shooting stats. That's the scariest stat I can think of. Their bystander/perp scores are painful.
When vital info is passed over a phone line, the person receiving it uses all his attention on it, to the near exclusion of everything else around them. Watch people on the phone some day. Hell, people in London have put up mattress pads on telephone poles because people have been bumping into them at a savage rate while texting on their phones. _Train_ wrecks have been caused by texting, fer chrissakes. Where have you been?
-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I thought the discussion was regarding *talking* on cell phones while driving. Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.

--

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

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Deb and I (and darling daughter) still talk with disbelieve about the time we saw a woman driving through the curves of the Canadian Rockies just east of Field, heading west, with a point and shoot camera to her eye trying to get a picture of the scenery.
I tapped my brakes and allowed a few vehicles to pass (when they could, there aren't a lot of opportunities), then dropped about 5 kph in speed for half an hour or so.
I sure as hell didn't want to be anywhere close behind her, and trying to pass was WAY too dangerous.
I saw no EMTs as we drove on, so I guess she made it and unfortunately she appeared to be of an age where she'd already reproduced...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Balderstone wrote:

I hear ya. This fourth of July, we were in Dallas and attended a wedding in Lewisville. On the way back to my Sister-in-Law's house, we happened to be driving by the Lewisville mall when they were having the fireworks grand finale. On the interstate, there was a woman in one of those new VW bugs driving in the middle lane with a camera taking pictures of the fireworks. She was slowed down to about 35 mph on a 65 mph highway in the flippin' middle lane. One of those, "Excuse me for staring, it's just that I've never seen stupid of this magnitude before" moments.
... snip
--

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

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Turner wrote:

No, we're looking at making it illegal for drivers to do something that might cause a real DEATH to occur. You're focussed on "infractions", not on _dangers_. If a kid runs out in front of you and you hit him no "infraction" has occurred, but maybe if you hadn't been nattering on your cell phone at the time you'd have noticed the ball that rolled out into the street in front of you and started braking on the basis that where a ball goes a kid often follows.

OK, how about this one. If you are driving a motor vehicle and hit someone, then if you were engaging in distracting behavior you can be charged with attempted murder, and if you kill someone while engaging in distracting behavior you can be charged with murder in the first degree? How about with a specific provision that it is assumed until proven otherwise that you could have avoided the collision if you had not been distracted?
Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because ... in general ... the "you people" to whom you refer place a tremendous amount of significance on what they perceive to be their "rights," but virtually ignore any semblance of what reasonable people would call "responsibilities."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

I think it's something more fundamental than that--I see people walking around the supermarket with phones glued to their ear and people texting in movie theaters. I suspect that they just plain don't like being alone with themselves or something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"

It's not the cell phone per se, that people are arguing that is important, it's the perception that another right is being outlawed that many people find hard to swallow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Ya gotta be smart about it though. Historically, tyranny has always started with the excuse of protecting the people.
I always liked the sentiment behind this verse:
"The law is for protection of the people, rules are rules and any fool can see, we don't need no hairy headed hippies scaring decent folks like you and me, no siree!
Apologies to Kris ... :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:02 -0500, upscale wrote:

The US courts have held that legally, driving is not a right but a privilege. As such, the states may place any restrictions they deem necessary on drivers.
Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a call, pull over and stop.
BTW, hand held cell phone use is a secondary offense in WA. It's been in effect for some time now and I see no reduction in people driving with a phone to their ear. I suspect it'll be a primary offense in a year or two.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.