O/T: Gotta Love It

Page 6 of 8  


Yes, you are probably right. It was the same with seat belt laws. A secondary offense at first that was upgraded to a primary in time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/29/2009 6:39 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

In a nation of scofflaw's, that still might not have the desired effect.
When you can break the little laws with impunity, broken bigger ones follow suit.
I'm paying for "law enforcement", but there seems to be damned little return on the money ... so what do we do now? We equip the cops like military units, and they immediately go to looking for someone to practice on with their new weapons and training.
Put 'em back to enforcing the little laws, like running stop signs,red lights, and enforcing speed limits and you'll begin to put the culture back on the track of "laws being for protection of the people".
Basically .... Yeah, this law applies to YOU!
(not you personally, Larry)
--
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 18:39:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard

Just a little clarification on this one. Statistics have not shown that cell phone use is a dangerous as drunk driving - *controlled tests* have shown essentially that. The thing that interests me is that the total number of accidents per mile driven in the US hasn't moved significantly in the last few years while cell phone use has gone through the roof. The *tests* show phone use while driving to be much more dangerous than the *statistics* show it to be. I think the truth is that most people who are seriously distracted by their cell phone were previously seriously distracted by something else, resulting in a wash as far as accident rates are concerned. With about 50% of the drivers I see on a daily basis on the phone I would expect massive pile-ups at every intersection, but it doesn't happen, so there is some disconnect between the controlled test results and the real world. Not an uncommon problem with testing, I might add.
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."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Douglass 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.
--

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 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita

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.
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.
Obviously, you're biased.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Google on "cell phone use as dangerous as drunk driving". I think you'll be surprised at what you find. Four of the first five hits refer to a *single* study conducted by researchers at the University of Utah using simulators.
The fifth does cite actual accident statistics, but states "The risk of having a traffic accident while using a cellular phone is the same as that while driving drunk" -- which is decidedly not the same thing as saying that the levels of danger are equivalent, because it addresses only the frequency of accidents and not their severity. My gut feeling is that people yapping on cell phones cause minor accidents, and drunk drivers cause serious ones: we're all far too familiar with reports in the newspaper of drunk drivers killing people, but when was the last time you read about a fatal accident caused by an idiot on a cell phone?

Excerpts from the articles referenced by Google: "Using a driving simulator under four different conditions..." "Each study participant drove the simulator..." "The volunteers in the new study drove a virtual vehicle..."

Obviously, you and I couldn't be, eh? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Actually, I am not. I very seldom use the cell phone for calls while I'm driving (less than once or twice a month). I use it as an MP3 player, but that requires no intervention on my part from the time I leave the parking lot to the time I pull in the driveway at home.
Frankly, I find it amusing that so many people find cell phone use to be so important for their social interactions that they are on the phone from the time they leave their work to the time they get home. What's even more amusing to me is the amount of personal information people are willing to share in public during their "private" cell phone chats. I'm betting many of these are the same people who got all bent out of shape over monitoring oversees calls to terrorist countries, yet they are willing to share the most intimate details of their latest medical ailment or inter-familial feud with the public.
--

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

Of the four of us in the family, Only me and daughter have cell phones.
I see her bills as it's my name on the account, and of course I see mine.
Between the two of us? Fewer than 30 calls a month. Fewer than 10 text messages a quarter.
Horses for courses...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

Sounds like it's time to look at "Burn it" phone cards.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:00:27 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

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.

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".

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."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:44:57 -0800, Tim Douglass wrote:

That might well be the case since I can't imagine a good driver who would compromise his/her driving by using a cell phone, eating, shaving, applying makeup, etc..
I think they should all be ticketable offenses.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country huh?
I agree with the rest listed, but some folks pretend that all drivers must always have both hands on the wheel (at 10 and 2) 100% of the time and be staring intently at the road maintaining a stoney silence and never so much as talking to a passenger, and that is taking the pendulum too far the other way. There should be parameters, but I don't know exactly how to specifically define them so that some reasonably fair enforcement can occur.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:39:41 -0600, Larry Blanchard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:32:35 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard

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....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dhall987 wrote:

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

Back when I was a teenager I was quite capable of rolling a smoke while steering with my knees and upshifting the Beetle from a full stop.
Automatic transmissions have weakened the human race...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

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

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

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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:25:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard

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.
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.