Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> What I call "Lifestyle Simplification" is the diametric
> opposite of "Conspicuous Consumersism".

Trapped in duality.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:12:33 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Subscribing to a newsgroup is cheaper than subscribing
> >to Mother Earth News.
> >
> >cheers,
> > Tom
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Mother Earth News costs $10 per year:
>
> http://www.motherearthnews.com
>
> The cost of a computer, a telephone/dsl/cable connection to the
> internet, and the electric bill for running it all is an order of
> magnitude greater.
>
> Of course, you can use the public library computers, but the library
> usually has Mother Earth News for free, too.
>
> Off to Ralph Waldo's house now for some decent grub in civilized
> surroundings. Beans are gawdawful boring outside of a book. I ate a
> groundhog once, and that was enough for me. I like to listen to Ralph
> re-hash "Self-Reliance" while I help myself to more chicken and
> dumplings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> H.D. Thoreau

Burrrrrrrrrrrrrp!

--
Michael Press

 

[Pegleg]

On 1 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0800, "Yarper" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
>to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
>working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
>http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/woman_is_sentenced_for_bicyclists_death
>
>What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
>they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.

Sounds similar to the Washington State criminal justice system. A bunch
of lazy ass legislators afraid to implement meaningfully laws.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
"nash" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
> thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
> you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
> in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
> for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
> comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
>
> I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
> answered even one of my questions No

Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
unable to think critically as well.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <d3ich.401482$1T2.388044@pd7urf2no>,
"nash" <[email protected]> top posted a
scathing retort:

[retort moved below]

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:11:14 GMT, "nash" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>As Frank Krygowski keeps pointing out, bicycling is a remarkably safe
> >>activity for the general population.
> >>
> >>Carl,
> >>I was talking about Dave's Reckoning and comparing it to China which I
> >>still
> >>think is true. no laws or signs just common sense
> >
> > Dear Nash,
> >
> > To jog your memory, here's your entire post:
> >
> > "Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> > injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> > knowledge. Anyone?"
>
> SO

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand,
water is water. And east is east and west is west, and
if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know.

Learn the reasons for not top-posting here:
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>

--
Michael Press

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:48:21 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:

>: > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
>: > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
>: > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
>: > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
>: > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
>: > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
>:
>: I agree.
>
>I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
>at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
>on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
>arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
>hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
>this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
>doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
>accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
>bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
>safely.

Only because they're lucky, so far. Do some research. There are many
studies out there showing cell-phone use while driving is comparable
to driving drunk. Drivers on cell-phones have tunnel vision. They
don't scan the road. They don't check their mirrors. They don't check
their blind spots. They fail to notice traffic signals or other
vehicles signalling. They don't read direction or information signs.
They seldom use their own turn signals.They misjudge braking
distances, etc. Basically, they're impaired.
>
>Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
>State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
>person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
>cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
Yes. Hands-free sets make little difference. Blind people aren't
permitted to drive. Unfortunately, stupid self-indulgent people are.

>Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
>unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
>cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
>attention.

I can spot them a block away. They're the idiots piddling along and
not looking where they're going. As a bicyclist I'm more aware of my
surroundings than a caged scud jockey ever will be. I've learned to
read a driver's body-language and can most often predict what they're
going to do before they even have a clue themselves.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:

>: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
>: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
>: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
>: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
>: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
>: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
>: and Austria, 31%.
>:
>: Do some research
>
>Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
>shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
>
>What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
>fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
>going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)

Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.

Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
phone.

If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
"collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.
--
zk

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <xblch.404969$5R2.276341@pd7urf3no>,
"nash" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Come back when you learn how to work a four-function calculator. The
>> illiteracy and mis-spelling are acceptable, but you really can't
>> expect to post numeric nonsense on a technical group without having
>> your errors pointed out.
>
> You wrote the same rhetoric before. I was writing to Bicycles.misc
> the list I did not notice. I do not want to be in those groups it
> just happened. But now I will cut them out.

Thank you.

> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that
> you can be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am
> smarter than most male brains and most female brains combined. I
> work 4X better than you Carl Fogel

You forgot to mention that you are grandiose and deluded.

> Too bad, you are plonked. DOA

It would appear that you are the one who has been at the plonk.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>
,
[email protected] wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
>
> Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
>
> > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
>
> I agree.
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

1. Illegal in the USA.
2. Driver's call is suddenly interrupted, and _all_
her attention and vision goes to the infernal device.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> : > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
> at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
> on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
> arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
> hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
> this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
> doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
> accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
> bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
> safely.
>
> Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
> State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
> person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
> cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
> Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
> unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
> cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
> attention.

Talking to someone takes far more attention than
eating. Someone on the other end of a telephone call
does not care how riled up they make the driver,
because they are not in the car with him.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

nash wrote:

> I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
>
> Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> Fogel



That from the guy who also posted:

"I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
jist
of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read
NO So
why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to
bike
in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for
my
taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would
you?
Because that is what you are telling me.

"I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
Have you answered even one of my questions No "

That's some meticulous spelling and grammar, all right! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.

Oh, I've been tempted...

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:47:40 GMT, "nash" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I did not say deaths. grow up
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...


>> No number in your citation addresses your "100's of head injuries
>> everyday in any Chinese city" claim. Those are all percentages of some
>> unknown number of accidents.
>>
>> But it's good to see that you've changed your mind about citations and
>> started looking at reality to see if it corresponds to what you claim.
>> It isn't so much whether you're right or wrong about a particular
>> matter--it's getting into the habit of looking into things.
>>
>> I'd be pleased if you find evidence that I'm mistaken in thinking that
>> you're off by an order of magnitude or so and that hundreds of
>> bicyclists suffer head injuries every day in any Chinese city.
>>
>> But a quick google doesn't suggest that's the case:
>>
>> "We are fortunate to have an in-depth report for China where bicycle
>> related deaths kill 22 per 1,000,000 per year [18]."
>>
>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1379660
>>
>> So in a Chinese city with a million people, there would be only 22
>> deaths per 365 x 100 = 36,500 head injuries. (Of course, those are 22
>> "bicycle-related" deaths and thus include a fair number of pedestrians
>> struck and killed by bicycles.)
>>


No, but you did say there were "100's" of head injuries per day. Carl
has done some sums that show that if you are right, only 22 of more
than 35 thousand head injuries result in deaths; a figure that is
wildly at odds with other typical cycling death/injury ratios.

 

[damyth]

Robert Coe wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> :
> : Tim McNamara wrote:
> : >
> : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> : > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> : > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> : > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> : > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> :
> : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
> :
> : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> : > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> : > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> : > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> : > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> : > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.
> :
> : I agree.
>
> I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a passenger, gawking
> at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more distracting to a driver than talking
> on a cell phone, and it's easy to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency
> arises (in contrast, say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of
> hot coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked off
> this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the driver was
> doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should certainly have been held
> accountable. But that's not a reason to jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone
> bandwagon. Many people use cell phones while driving, and most of those do it
> safely.
>
> Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm aware of no
> State that takes that position. Most people would agree that a one-armed
> person can safely drive a car with automatic transmission. Is a driver with a
> cell phone in one hand any more impaired?
>
> Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case, largely
> unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that stands on its own),
> cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough to attract a police officer's
> attention.

That last paragraph is a complete cop out. Using that argument, rape
or child molestation shouldn't be prosecuted either because they
occurred out of sight of a police officer. Are open alcohol bottles in
the car also largely unenforceable?

I'm no cop, but I certainly can easily tell which drivers yakking on
the cell phone . They are either driving *very* slowly, slow enough to
disrupt the flow of traffic, or erratically (can tell from their
inattention and delayed reaction times.)

It also is no accident I've been rear-ended 3x by drivers talking on
their cell phone. All 3 happened when I was stopped 3 or 4 cars deep
beneath a red traffic light. I haven't been rear ended by anyone one
else who happened to be eating/drinking while they were driving, for
example.

 

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:17:44 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
: >: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
: >: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
: >: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
: >: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
: >: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
: >: and Austria, 31%.
: >:
: >: Do some research
: >
: >Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
: >shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
: >
: >What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
: >fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
: >going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)
:
: Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
: proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
: personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
: culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
: stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
: education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.
:
: Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
: average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
: fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
: domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
: you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
: changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
: your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
: phone.
:
: If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
: negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
: Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
: "collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.

How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius. Actually, you got
most of the details wrong, but it is a fact that I'd be willing to bet, sight
unseen, that I'm a safer driver than you are. Or are you one of those
self-styled experts who knows everything it's important to know about cars but
has never actually driven one?

Come to think of it, you did say you were just guessing. Oh, well ...

Bob

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2 Dec 2006 11:26:09 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > :
> > : Tim McNamara wrote:
> > : >
> > : > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can
> > : > tell this by the fact that coverage in almost all US
> > : > metropolitan areas is excellent on highways and spotty to poor
> > : > more than 1/4 away from highways. In the Twin Cities metro are
> > : > there are many, many coverage holes and my phone (Sprint) is
> > : > frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.
> > :
> > : Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of
> > : that.
> > :
> > : > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A
> > : > dozen times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully
> > : > while talking on cell phones- all of them probably thinking
> > : > they are driving fine. NO ONE drives safely while talking on a
> > : > cell phone, and hands free phones don't help much if at all.
> > : > If you think you can drive safely while you're talking on your
> > : > cell phone, you are delusional.
> > :
> > : I agree.
> >
> > I don't. Many activities (eating, smoking, arguing with a
> > passenger, gawking at attractive pedestrians, etc.) are more
> > distracting to a driver than talking on a cell phone, and it's easy
> > to simply drop the phone if a sudden emergency arises (in contrast,
> > say, to what you have to do with a cigarette or a cup of hot
> > coffee). Downloading ringtones, the activity that supposedly kicked
> > off this thread, is an entirely different matter, of course. If the
> > driver was doing that and caused a fatal accident, she should
> > certainly have been held accountable. But that's not a reason to
> > jump on the extremist anti-cell-phone bandwagon. Many people use
> > cell phones while driving, and most of those do it safely.
> >
> > Should a person with only one arm be prohibited from driving? I'm
> > aware of no State that takes that position. Most people would agree
> > that a one-armed person can safely drive a car with automatic
> > transmission. Is a driver with a cell phone in one hand any more
> > impaired?

The issue is not how many hands you have on the steering wheel, it is
whether you are paying attention to what you are doing. A car is a
terrestrial semi-guided missile once it is in motion, but many drivers
treat it as a portable living room. The research into this has shown
that hands-free cell phone users drive as poorly as people holding on to
their cell phone and talking. Both drive as well as people whose blood
alcohol content is near the legal limit.

> > Laws against using a cell phone while driving are, in any case,
> > largely unenforceable. Absent erratic driving (an offense that
> > stands on its own), cell phone use isn't usually noticeable enough
> > to attract a police officer's attention.

I can spot lots of people on cell phones from their posture, unless they
are using hands free phones and often even then they can be spotted by
their poor driving. If I can spot them, so can cops. That means the
law is enforceable. However, a law banning cell phones would be no
better enforced than speed limits. Given the "limit plus 15 mph" leeway
given locally, that means practically not at all. Cops face no part of
their job less popular than enforcing speed limits and other traffic
laws unless there an accident has happened.

> Talking to someone takes far more attention than eating. Someone on
> the other end of a telephone call does not care how riled up they
> make the driver, because they are not in the car with him.

Every single workday I see dozens of people talking on cell phones,
eating, reading, sorting through CDs and every one of them is weaving in
and out of their lane, swerving to correct their trajectory around a
corner, making a dash across three lanes of traffic for an exit, etc.
The people driving attentively tend to be in the minority. I hate
driving as a result and do it as little as I can.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> > would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of
> > my bike.
>
> Oh, I've been tempted...
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm

The problem is that all those people would be paying even less attention
to what they are doing while they try to figure out what's wrong with
their phone. They'd probably be more likely to run you over.

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:07:19 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:

>How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius.

Not quite a genius the last time that was checked. But I can tell
from your posturing that you believe you're exceptional. That's
subject to question since you appear stupid enough to think you can
drive as safely while you're yapping into your beloved brain-frying
cell phone.

>Or are you one of those
>self-styled experts who knows everything it's important to know about cars but
>has never actually driven one?

I won't boast about my driving capabilities but I've held a valid
drivers license for forty years. I have a clean driving record and
receive the biggest insurance discounts. I enrolled in an evasive
driving course that was required for a temporary job I took in 1986.
There I learned that the average driver is basically inept.
Experience leads me to believe you're nothing special.

Before and after that I was mostly a motorcyclist. I hate being caged
and hope to never need owning another scud. But I drove about 50 feet
today when I was asked to get an incompetent driver's car out of the
rutted and hard frozen slush where they were stuck. I'm a bicyclist
first and foremost. It's long been my preferred mode of
transportation.

From your spouting I can judge that you're a scud addicted egoist who
disregards the laws and probably disintegrates into a raging whack
job when another road user gets "in your way". You probably don't
have the skill or disposition to safely negotiate a city where
"second generation" traffic calming has been adopted.

The main jist of this "discussion", and the one that is topical to
your newsgroup, is that you, me, nor anyone is capable of driving
with their complete attention while engaged in a cell-phone
conversation or manipulating the damned contraption.

Go park and change your ring tone. That old one has become as
annoyingly monotonous as you.
--
zk

 

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:16:40 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:07:19 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius.
:
: Not quite a genius the last time that was checked. But I can tell
: from your posturing that you believe you're exceptional. That's
: subject to question since you appear stupid enough to think you can
: drive as safely while you're yapping into your beloved brain-frying
: cell phone.
:
: >Or are you one of those
: >self-styled experts who knows everything it's important to know about cars but
: >has never actually driven one?
:
: I won't boast about my driving capabilities but I've held a valid
: drivers license for forty years. I have a clean driving record and
: receive the biggest insurance discounts. I enrolled in an evasive
: driving course that was required for a temporary job I took in 1986.
: There I learned that the average driver is basically inept.
: Experience leads me to believe you're nothing special.

I don't know how "experience" tells you that, but you're right: I'm not. I've
been driving a little longer than you (54 years), and I've never ridden a
motorcycle. And while I've encountered my share of inept drivers, I'm not sure
the average driver is inept. As long as I can stay out of his way, maybe I
won't have to find out. But like you, I get the biggest insurance discounts,
including the one for riding public transportation to work every day.

: Before and after that I was mostly a motorcyclist. I hate being caged
: and hope to never need owning another scud. But I drove about 50 feet
: today when I was asked to get an incompetent driver's car out of the
: rutted and hard frozen slush where they were stuck. I'm a bicyclist
: first and foremost. It's long been my preferred mode of
: transportation.

I hope you're a safer than average motorcyclist. A shocking percentage of the
ones I see on U.S. highways appear to be nuts. Of all the times I've been
passed on high-speed roads by vehicles going two or more times the speed
limit, only a handful of those vehicles have been automobiles. The rest were
motorcycles.

: From your spouting I can judge that you're a scud addicted egoist who
: disregards the laws and probably disintegrates into a raging whack
: job when another road user gets "in your way". You probably don't
: have the skill or disposition to safely negotiate a city where
: "second generation" traffic calming has been adopted.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I don't know how you think you know
me so well, but again I guess I don't care.

: The main jist of this "discussion", and the one that is topical to
: your newsgroup, is that you, me, nor anyone is capable of driving
: with their complete attention while engaged in a cell-phone
: conversation or manipulating the damned contraption.

As it happens, I never said I was. I use a cell phone while driving very
rarely and only in situations when traffic is light and I can do it without
getting into trouble. I never initiate a call except by voice activation. And
I'm always ready to drop the call if the road needs my attention. It's really
no different from talking to a passenger.

: Go park and change your ring tone. That old one has become as
: annoyingly monotonous as you.

If you don't like what I say, you don't have to read it. I think I will shut
up, though; I'm starting to get the feeling that arguing with you is just
feeding the troll.

Actually, you and I have something in common: it appears that we both post to
Usenet using the same antiquated version of Forte Agent. I haven't upgraded
because I'm too lazy. What's your excuse?

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
> As it happens, I never said I was. I use a cell phone while driving very
> rarely and only in situations when traffic is light and I can do it without
> getting into trouble. I never initiate a call except by voice activation. And
> I'm always ready to drop the call if the road needs my attention. It's really
> no different from talking to a passenger.
>
> Bob

Bob, I think you've made some mistakes in that exchange. The first was
to slam second generation traffic calming without learning about it.

I don't pretend to be an expert in traffic calming, but I'm aware of
serious attempts at re-thinking road priorities and affecting driver
behavior. Some of them really do seem successful, even though they're
counterintutive. Read up on the subject.

About motorcyclists, don't paint with too broad a brush. Judging all
motorcyclists by observing the most conspicuous 18-year-old
crotch-rocket riders is as bad as judging all bicyclists by the bike
messengers engaging in unsanctioned urban races. Motorcycling, on
average, isn't as safe as bicycling or motoring, from what I can tell;
but there's tremendous variation in safety caused by the motorcyclist's
behavior.

And about the cell phone: There _is_ significant danger in using one
while driving, and it's _much_ different than conversing with a
passenger. That applies to one-hand operation, no hands operation,
voice activated dialing or whatever. It's not the number of hands in
use, it's not your supposed willingness to drop the phone. It's the
disconnection from the life-threatening act of moving several thousand
pounds of metal at speed. Again, read up on the subject. The research
has been done, and there's no serious disagreement.

I'm sure you believe you're competent at this. They all do - including
the colleague of mine who spazzed while talking to me, hung up, then
called back while parked and said he'd almost had an "incident."

If you're tempted to use the cell while driving, why not ask yourself:
What on earth about this call is so critical, so important, that if it
happened fifteen years ago, I'd be in serious trouble?

The answer is "Nothing."

Hang up and drive.

- Frank Krygowski