O/T: Gotta Love It TV-B-Gone and similar devices

[Dave Balderstone]

Likely Mohawk, and likely from Akwesasne, which is in both Canada and the US (NY State).

[Swingman]

Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?

Apparently there were a number of them. If I hadn't gone through it myself I would be surprised that their participation in that particular operational area would not be better known.

No one wanted to hear about it then, and obviously fewer could care less now.

My hat goes off to them in any event ...

[Dave Balderstone]

Yes, it's in Quebec, Ontario and NY State.

[Swingman]

Using your above to DAGS, I ran across a blip in the first paragraph of this:

after all these years, is starting to make sense. 5th Special Forces Group, headquartered in Nha Trang at the time, was in charge of "indigenous" (Montagnard in this case) "Mike Strike" units in the Central Highlands which participated in the same operations that the ARVN Ranger unit, for whom I acted as artillery adviser and Forward Observer, participated.

These "indigenous" military units were headed by US Special Forces Rangers, usually 2 to four per unit. It happened that quite a few of these guys in this particular area were Canadians and spoke French, which fit nicely with the location (Central Highlands) and SF Ranger remarks in the link above.

A piece of the puzzle that at least some of these were the "reportedly Canadian Indians" they were rumored to be? ... something I always wondered about ... complicated by the fact that there were Korean and Australian units in the same area, so language differences when dealing with each other over the radio was both an issue, and when things got hot, noticeable.

Thanks ...

[Lew Hodgett]

wrote

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

[Steve Turner]

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.

[Robatoy]

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?"

[Steve Turner]

Perzactly.

[Ed Pawlowski]

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.

[upscale]

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. 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?

[Mark & Juanita]

This debate is as old as technology. I have some old amateur radio magazine from the 50's in which there were discussions of various municipalities banning the use of microphones while driving. Much for and agin' on the ham radio side. This whole thread could have been held in a several month sequence of letters to the editor in "CQ" magazine back in

1955.

/disclaimers: a) No, I'm not that old, I got the magazines from a family friend when I was about 12. and b) no, I'm not a ham operator, I could never teach myself how to reliably receive the required morse code at speed. Sending, no problem, hearing -- big problem. But I did actively pursue it when I was young, built a couple of receivers and spent a lot of time listening as well as shortwave listening.

>

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

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

[Artemus]

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

[Steve Turner]

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...

> As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway

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.

[Steve Turner]

I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you speak, but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while performing distracting acts (such as those I described above)? I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not getting enforced: Because they'd have to pull over practically every car on the road, that's why!

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who are

*actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody from doing things that *might* cause an accident? If it turns out the errant driver was engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them with an additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply can't contain these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and from each other.

[Lee Michaels]

"Steve Turner" wrote

I told this story before.

The only time I ever drove drunk was through on of those "intensive enforcement" campaigns supposedly designed to catch drunk drivers. They just pull over lots of cars at random in a select area and harrass everybody. Young, dumb and drunk, I drove through almost 50 miles of this. Hundreds of cars were pulled over getting "special treatment".

Drunk as a skunk, I drove through this. They never noticed me. They were to busy rousing the citizens to notice me. Good timing on my part. Or just the luck of youth or something. First and last time I ever did this. I knew my luck would never hold out another time.

[upscale]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:13:05 -0500, "Lee Michaels"

There they are, harassing people just for the hell of it, at least that's how you make it sound. And behold, they actually catch a percentage of drivers over the limit using this "harassing" tactic. Wonders will never cease!

[J. Clarke]

I see enforceability as the issue. "Distracted" is a judgment call--a cop pulls somebody over for distracted driving and spends the next six months in court while the lawyers wrangle over what "distracted" means, then the case goes up through the appellate process and eventually the Supremes rule that "distracted" is "unconstitutionally vague".

Distracted driving _is_ an "infraction". Stopping somebody who is ten over the limit in a brand new Ferrari on a rural Interstate on a bright sunny day makes less sense from a public safety viewpoint than does stopping somebody who is nattering on a cell phone while reading a map, eating a burger, and getting a BJ but obeying the speed limit.

Futile attempts to save everybody from themselves I agree with. Saving people from each other though is the reason we _have_ laws. If we aren't going to do that then we may as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery.

[J. Clarke]

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?

[J. Clarke]

>>> As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway

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.