Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

Pat wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, Eric Vey wrote:

Pat wrote:
You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.
You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.
A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I don't know of any state that has outlawed cell phones while driving.
But you ought to know that yours is a pretty poor argument. Some people
use that same argument when talking about the outlawing of crack. Do you
think crack should be legalized because of that argument?

donquijote1954 writes:

On Feb 24, 2:16Â*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. Â*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.

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.


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

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:47 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
wrote:

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

CT has a similar ban.

In my experience, the cell phone ban in CT and NY is about as
effective as the laws requiring a stop before a right run on red,
those restricting loud exhausts and opaque dark window tint, and those
requiring a front license plate.

We should make more motor vehicle laws to not enforce. G

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.

On Feb 24, 4:36*pm, Pat wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:15*pm, donquijote1954
wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:32*pm, Eric Vey wrote:

Pat wrote:

You-all need to move to someplace sane. *Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. *What does it do? *It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. *So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. *It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. *It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. *But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

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

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, Pat wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:14*pm, donquijote1954
wrote:





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."

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.

Just exactly who is "society"?

If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are ****ed off at the
world, then what do you know anyway....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the sheep, the people who condemn the drunk driver, but tolerate
the phone. But I'm not ****ed off at the world just at its hypocrisy.

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.


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.


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?

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.

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.

donquijote1954 writes:

On Feb 24, 5:25Â*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
donquijote1954 writes:
On Feb 24, 2:16Â*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? Â*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. Â*It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. Â*Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. Â*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. Â*It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". Â*I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. Â*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