Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

On Feb 24, 6:41*pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:25*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:





donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 2:16*am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....

Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

snip

Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. *It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

But more drivers yet are breathing air ... and too much of that will
make you lightheaded. Maybe you should ban breathing.




I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

What hypocrisy? *They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI. *It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. *Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. *If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

Bike riders complaining about car drivers is also particulary
hypocritical.








Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. *It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". *I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. *So let's keep a sense of reality here.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 24, 6:59*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 5:25*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 2:16*am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

The author was clearly talking about the risk per individual.

What hypocrisy? *They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI. *It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. *Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. *If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

YOU can't be serious. *The U.S. is not "so strict" about DUI compared
to several European countries, which have far stricter standards.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. *It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". *I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. *So let's keep a sense of reality here.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

Around here, when you get have bad enough traffic to delay you 15
minutes and you are stuck at a red light, chances are you won't
get through the light on one cycle, and chances are you won't be
in the first car in a very long queue. *There's plenty of time
to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you
might get to start moving again.

Around here, we don't have traffic lights.

(Actually we have three, but if people can't get through in a single
40 second light, they complain to the mayor).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

--------------------

I think it's amazing what a low opinion you have of Americans that you
think
they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to
obey.

I don't have a low opinion of Americans. I have a low opinion of that
law ... as do the VAST majority of people.

------------------------

Precisely. You believe the vast majority of Americans are no better able
than you to exhibit common sense or concern for the safety of others they
might encounter.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 7:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

--------------------

I think it's amazing what a low opinion you have of Americans that you
think
they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to
obey.

I don't have a low opinion of Americans. I have a low opinion of that
law ... as do the VAST majority of people.

------------------------

Precisely. You believe the vast majority of Americans are no better able
than you to exhibit common sense or concern for the safety of others they
might encounter.



I suspect that Pat isn't young enough to remember when no one had cell
phones. He has grown up in a world where chatting on a cell phone is as
normal as listening to the radio when driving. So when confronted by
people that want to stop this "normal" behavior, he objects.

So how dangerous is cell phone usage?
Transportation Institute releases findings on driver behavior and crash
factors
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?r...006&itemno=237

[big snip]

• Drowsiness is a significant problem that increases a driver’s risk of
a crash or near-crash by at least a factor of four. But drowsy driving
may be significantly under-reported in police crash investigations.

• The most common distraction for drivers is the use of cell phones.
However, the number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to dialing
is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening.
Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening.

• Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or
near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times;
reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held
device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or
listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times.

• Drivers who engage frequently in distracting activities are more
likely to be involved in an inattention-related crash or near-crash.
However, drivers are often unable to predict when it is safe to look
away from the road to multi-task because the situation can change
abruptly leaving the driver no time to react even when looking away from
the forward roadway for only a brief time.

[more snipped]

On Feb 24, 6:59*pm, Eric Vey wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?

Cell phone policies in different countries and states...

http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

"This page lists those countries that have banned the use of a cell
phone when driving unless used with some form of hands-free kit."

So that's a pretty useless page.

It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not
driving with one hand.

In the US, I think only California will have a law totally banning them
while driving. Watching TV while driving has been illegal forever (the
TV was legal, but it had to be placed so that the driver couldn't
watch), but I've noticed a few drivers have installed TV's where they
can see them anyway.

A lot of good things happening in California ever since Conan is the
boss. I'm sure it's not because of his party affiliation, but because
his place of birth.

On Feb 24, 6:59*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 5:25*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 2:16*am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

The author was clearly talking about the risk per individual.

What hypocrisy? *They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI. *It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. *Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. *If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

YOU can't be serious. *The U.S. is not "so strict" about DUI compared
to several European countries, which have far stricter standards.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. *It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". *I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. *So let's keep a sense of reality here.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

Around here, when you get have bad enough traffic to delay you 15
minutes and you are stuck at a red light, chances are you won't
get through the light on one cycle, and chances are you won't be
in the first car in a very long queue. *There's plenty of time
to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you
might get to start moving again.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A phone is a bad idea on any moving vehicle and my girlfriend recently
had a noisy fall from her bicycle because of it. And I'm sure braking
with hand had to do with it.

On Feb 25, 11:11*am, Pat wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:46*pm, donquijote1954
wrote:





On Feb 24, 5:55*pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat

wrote:

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.

Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are. * *Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...

While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order. *Driving is the same. *I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle. *Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all. * *If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road. *If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.

If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

I said before we need better laws and better enforcement, which is the
way to stop the road terrorists...

Would you allow known terrorists to run around with bombs? Well, cell
phones are such a thing in the hands of dangerous drivers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Get off your high horse. *You're being ridiculus.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so, a life is a life. And those dying in our roads because of
dangerous drivers are no less heroes than those dying in Iraq.
Actually more so...

On Feb 25, 11:17*am, Pat wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:41*pm, donquijote1954
wrote:





On Feb 24, 5:25*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 2:16*am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....

Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

snip

Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. *It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

But more drivers yet are breathing air ... and too much of that will
make you lightheaded. *Maybe you should ban breathing.

Well, it happens they punish drunk drivers and not cell phone users,
which means they are either stupid or biased against drunks, which
makes them selective in the application of the law.

It's like you punish someone for killing another, but he gets off the
hook if he was sober.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation
modes also pollute and kill people.

Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh!

You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the
traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law
breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for bicycle riders is
also very high.

Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more
food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport,
clean up that does that does pollute.

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative
transportation modes also pollute and kill people.

Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh!

You mean when cyclist continually run red lights and ignore most of the
traffic laws. That leads to accidents with drivers trying to avoid law
breaking bicycle riders. Of course the death rate for bicycle riders is
also very high.

Since you are playing ignorant again, riding a bike require eating more
food. Food takes a lot of energy in the entire cycle to grow, transport,
clean up that does that does pollute.

When they ride in cars, they take less fuel to transport than fat people who
don't exercise.