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

"Ange1o DePa1ma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6IucnXBBFvkL6urYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> "compubyte" <compubyte0417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AbSdnZbkPJ0TwerYnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go
>>> to jail.
>>>
>>
>> Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .
>>
>> In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
>> cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
>> driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
>> bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
>> MULTITASK.. Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
>> well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone..
>> I truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots..
>> let's face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying
>> attention. let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen
>> WALKING and talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or
>> crossing the side street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a
>> cell phone NOT sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE
>> RESPONSIBLITY.. doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more
>> simplier than that.
>> Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come
>> on. 22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun.
>> YOU get an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you.
>> Period!!
>> Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
>> mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
>> again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL
>> if she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE
>> DOWN on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER
>> caused an accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us
>> were as good as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all
>> those comments I had to say something LOL
>
> LOL LOL!! I have news for you:
>
> It is a traffic offense to use a handset while driving in NJ. It should be
> a crime, or at least a serious moving violation. LOL!! Why? Because it is
> extremely easy to kill someone when you're not paying full attention to
> the road ahead of you. Personally, I wish everyone who drives and talks on
> their cell phone would run their car into something big, hard, and
> immovable. The world will be a better place without them. LOL. LOL!!
>
> I do a lot of driving in town and on the highway. I can't tell you the
> number of times a car has swerved into my lane, sometimes head on, because
> the driver was looking down, or staring at their phone held at arm's
> length in front of them in plain sight. While I'm driving my son to school
> in the morning three quarters of the motorists driving past the
> intersection at the bottom of my street are going 30 miles over the speed
> limit, downhill, in their SUVs or trucks while gabbing on their goddamned
> phones. LOL!! I would love to know who all these brain dead morons are
> speaking with at 7:40 in the morning. Two years ago one of these imbeciles
> went off the road and knocked down a telephone poll. LOL!! Too bad they
> survived, LOL!!
>
> My daughters walk home on this same street almost every day, about 8 feet
> from traffic. LOL!!!
>
> Some day one of these stupid motherfuckers is going to kill a cop, or a
> some big shot politician, or judge. At that point we'll get some
> meaningful laws against this incredibly stupid, dangerous fetish some
> people have with driving and talking on the phone. LOL!!
>
> Angelo DePalma
Well done Angelo
I mean it. This guy is obviously not a cyclist and no one has to be
shouting for 5 minutes LOL

Jay Beattie wrote:
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if someone's not paying attention, regardless of
>> reason, they DO need to be punished. Severity of the punishment should
>> be determined by how much trouble they caused.
>
> Right on. There are lots of distractions in cars these days -- goofy
> OnStar navigation systems, cell phones, CD players, DVDs, radios, etc.,
> etc. I think it is the combined total of all these gizmos that is the
> problem -- added to the increased traffic and increased irritibility of
> drivers. I also think depriving motorists of their cell phones while
> driving would serve the salutory purpose of making people shut up for a
> minute. -- Jay Beattie.
>

Very true but it begs this general question for everyone reading...

When driving what is the most common activity you see drivers doing
while driving?

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

While using a cell phone and driving may not have been technically illegal,
driving recklessly is, if it results in someone's death that is what some
might call evidence of recklessness. The person who was killed wouldn't have
been if the driver had been paying attention to what she was supposed to be
doing, driving.

Next year it will be illegal to use anything but a handsfree cell phone in
California. I believe that New York state already has a law similiar to that
in place.

As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
time.

As for using a cell phone and causing an accident, I believe the person in
question killed someone, sounds like she needs to "take responsibility" for
her actions as you say.

I think the expression you were looking for is "per se".

No one is claiming or has claimed that the woman in question acted with
malice or with forethought but her irresponsibility caused the death of
another. She should have been tried for manslaughter and from the sound of
it, she should have been convicted.

Venting is great, when someone you love is killed thru the irresponsible,
preventable actions of another, feel free to vent to your heart's content.

Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
phone.

John E.

"compubyte" <compubyte0417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AbSdnZbkPJ0TwerYnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go
to
> > jail.
> >
>
> Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .
>
> In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
> cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
> driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
> bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
> MULTITASK.. Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
> well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone.. I
> truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots..
let's
> face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying attention.
> let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen WALKING and
> talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or crossing the side
> street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a cell phone NOT
> sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE RESPONSIBLITY..
> doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more simplier than
> that.
> Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come
on.
> 22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun. YOU get
> an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you. Period!!
> Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
> mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
> again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL
if
> she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE DOWN
> on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER caused
an
> accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us were as
good
> as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all those comments
I
> had to say something LOL
>
>
>

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
<johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


>Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
>question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
>was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
>manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
>doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
>phone.
>
>John E.

Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
proof that they weren't paying attention.

Here in NYC we just had a case where a guy drove the wrong way on a
highway and killed two people. Then he had the nerve to argue that he
wasn't drunk. To me, that just makes it worse. Then he drove the wrong
way on purpose.

dgk wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
> <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
> >question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
> >was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
> >manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
> >doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
> >phone.
> >
> >John E.
>
> Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
> anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
> proof that they weren't paying attention.
>
> Here in NYC we just had a case where a guy drove the wrong way on a
> highway and killed two people. Then he had the nerve to argue that he
> wasn't drunk. To me, that just makes it worse. Then he drove the wrong
> way on purpose.

Not that we're interested in the whole stories, but your snippets have
little bearing on anything.

Notan

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:l6rgn2lmopb00g7u1g25via3rb3vnv0gpa@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
> <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person
>>in
>>question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
>>was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
>>manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she
>>was
>>doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
>>phone.
>>
>>John E.
>
> Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
> anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
> proof that they weren't paying attention.

You have obviously never hunted with a shotgun with a group of people. A
person who "disappears" to get a better shot 50 years away can easily be
mistaken for something edible. Whatever you think of Cheney, that was an
accident. And even if it were due to negligence who was going to snitch on
him? He was with a party of friends and the victim, who was barely
scratched, did not even consider pressing charges.

Had Cheney been firing away while talking to his stockbroker on his cell
phone, then I say hang the guy.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

> You have obviously never hunted with a shotgun with a group of people.

I certainly have too...

> A person who "disappears" to get a better shot 50 years away can easily be
> mistaken for something edible.

Not at all what happened according to reports.

> Whatever you think of Cheney, that was an
> accident. And even if it were due to negligence who was going to snitch on
> him? He was with a party of friends and the victim, who was barely
> scratched, did not even consider pressing charges.

A good deal worse than barely scratched: (USA Today, starting quote
from a Ms. Armstrong, property owner):

"The vice president didn't see him," she said. "The covey flushed and
the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And
by god [sic], Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty
good."

Armstrong said the shotgun pellets broke the skin.

"It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were
open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that," she said.

The accident was not reported publicly by the vice president's office
for nearly 24 hours, and then only after it was reported by the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times on its website Sunday.

McBride said the vice president's office did not tell reporters about
the accident Saturday because they were deferring to Armstrong to
handle the announcement of what happened on her property.

Armstrong said everyone at the ranch was so "focused" on Whittington's
health Saturday that it wasn't until Sunday she called the Caller-Times
to report the accident. Her ranch is about 60 miles southwest of Corpus
Christi.

Sally Whittington told The Dallas Morning News her father was being
observed because of swelling from some of the welts on his neck. His
face "looks like chicken pox, kind of," she said. (end quote)

His observation was being carried out in the Intensive Care Unit. Loved
the small-g God thing. USA Today, always vigilant!

More, from a different source ( Wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Whittington ):

<On February 11, 2006, Whittington, a Bush-Cheney campaign contributor,
was accidentally shot and injured by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney
during a quail hunting trip, at a ranch in south Texas owned by
Katharine Armstrong. Armstrong is heavily involved in lobbying, mostly
with Republicans. Most of the damage from the shotgun blast was to the
right side of his body, including damage to his face, chest, and neck.
He was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.
Armstrong stated that Whittington was shot when Cheney was shooting at
a covey of birds. She also says that Whittington did not alert Cheney
to his location and was simply caught in the middle. The Kenedy County
Sheriff's office has cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in the
matter [2].
On February 14, hospital officials revealed that some of the lead
birdshot lodged in Whittington's heart caused a minor heart attack [3].
Doctors do not plan to remove all the pellets from Whittington's body.
They are not certain how many pellets are lodged in Whittington's body,
but estimated there are "less than 150 or 200." [4] [5]
Whittington was discharged from the hospital on February 17, 2006.>

"Lodged in the heart". A mighty deep scratch! "Armstrong heavily
involved in lobbying with Republicans". Six days in the hospital...

There were other quotes from various stories, such as "comes with the
territory" and "this happens in quail hunting". Aside from the
attempted first-line cover-up, of course.

So: Are you on the payroll ("barely scratched") or donating your time
for the cause?

My family were all hunters and fishermen. Shooting someone would indeed
have been an act of great shame-- Rule #1: Be sure of what you're
shooting at! ("Don't turn around to follow birds", which apparently is
what Cheney did, as Whittington was reportedly catching back up to the
shooting group after picking up a dead bird.)

Cheney admitted to "having a beer at lunch" (you may google for
confirmation). Drinking *anything* alcoholic in any amount before the
hunting day is over? Totally irresponsible, in terms of judgement and
eyesight acuity, especially for an older person. No alcohol blood tests
were taken, by report.

> Had Cheney been firing away while talking to his stockbroker on his cell
> phone, then I say hang the guy.

Nice try at further deflection. Had Cheney learned about shooting in
the military (fire zones), since he obviously didn't get any early
training at home, this "accident" wouldn't have happened. Well, as he
said, he had better things to do...

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHG...20Chickenhawks

or the same in TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/qkor

Thanks for your time. --D-y

In article
<hiYdh.165137$Fi1.124409@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att
..net>,
"John Emmons" <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
> cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
> or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
> time.

Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
sidewalk/pavement.

--
Michael Press

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <jack@fake.net>
wrote:

>All of you while walking have had
>to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
>sidewalk/pavement.

Or not.

You get extra points if they drop the phone and then step on it
themselves.
--
zk

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <jack@fake.net> wrote:
: In article
: <hiYdh.165137$Fi1.124409@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att
: .net>,
: "John Emmons" <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
: > time.
:
: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
: sidewalk/pavement.

My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
do it, I suggest that you have a problem.

Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

Robert Coe wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <jack@fake.net> wrote:
>: In article
>: <hiYdh.165137$Fi1.124409@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att
>: .net>,
>: "John Emmons" <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:
>: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
>: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
>: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
>: > time.
>:
>: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
>: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
>: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
>: sidewalk/pavement.
>
>My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
>do it, I suggest that you have a problem.
>
>Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?
>
>

Talk about the dumbest reply on record. You win (that award).

Robert Coe wrote:
> Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

HITLER HITLER HITLER HITLER

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:17:20 -0500, gamer <edc4h@cox.net> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <jack@fake.net> wrote:
: >: In article
: >: <hiYdh.165137$Fi1.124409@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att
: >: .net>,
: >: "John Emmons" <johncyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >:
: >: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
: >: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
: >: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
: >: > time.
: >:
: >: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
: >: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
: >: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
: >: sidewalk/pavement.
: >
: >My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
: >do it, I suggest that you have a problem.
: >
: >Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?
: >
: >
:
: Talk about the dumbest reply on record. You win (that award).

You prove my point. Increasingly loony.

Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
> My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
> do it, I suggest that you have a problem.

If your 2-year-old daugher were walking while talking into a cell
phone, I think she'd be paying less attention to where she was
walking, who she was about to bump into, whether she was about to walk
out in front of a car, etc. At least, that's what I observe among
college students. She'd also be talking much louder than a normal
conversation, and talking loudly in inappropriate settings (like
meetings and restaurants).

OTOH, she'd be much more informed of her 2-year-old friends activities
- as in "What are you doing?.... Oh nothing... Are you going to Nikki's
tomorrow? ... What did you guys have for lunch?"

It's conversations like this that are so valuable that drivers (and
walkers) just _have_ to have a phone to their ear.

>
> Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

To quote from your post yesterday:

"Who cares? Nobody says you have to read it."

Hope this helps!

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:17:35 -0800, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:48:21 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> 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.

So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!
;^)

Bob

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:51:38 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>
>So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
>evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!

You probably didn't even see her before jumping out into the street.
You were only looking for cars maybe?
Were you in a cross-walk or were you jay-walking? I've found that
jaywalkers are usually drivers who've just left their cars.
--
zk

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:51:38 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>>So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
>>evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!
>
>You probably didn't even see her before jumping out into the street.
>You were only looking for cars maybe?
>Were you in a cross-walk or were you jay-walking? I've found that
>jaywalkers are usually drivers who've just left their cars.

Careful Zoot - you'll pull a muscle trying to jump to so many
conclusions (entirely without any suggestion that they're right) at
once.

It appears that you're just as willing to blindly believe that all
cyclists are innocent of stupidity, just as you do assuming all
drivers are guilty.

FWIW, I very often ride through the ASU (Arizona State University) and
I find that cellphone induced stupidity affects all modes of
transportaion - pedestrian, cyclist and drivers. In each case, they
are paying almost no attention to their surroundings, are are likely
to do (literally) anything without notice. This is annoying with
pedestrians, but more dangerous with cyclists (since they're moving
faster and thus provide less margin for avoiding them safely).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:32:39 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

>Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:51:38 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>
>>>So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
>>>evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!
>>
>>You probably didn't even see her before jumping out into the street.
>>You were only looking for cars maybe?
>>Were you in a cross-walk or were you jay-walking? I've found that
>>jaywalkers are usually drivers who've just left their cars.
>
>Careful Zoot - you'll pull a muscle trying to jump to so many
>conclusions (entirely without any suggestion that they're right) at
>once.
>
>It appears that you're just as willing to blindly believe that all
>cyclists are innocent of stupidity, just as you do assuming all
>drivers are guilty.
>
>FWIW, I very often ride through the ASU (Arizona State University) and
>I find that cellphone induced stupidity affects all modes of
>transportaion - pedestrian, cyclist and drivers. In each case, they
>are paying almost no attention to their surroundings, are are likely
>to do (literally) anything without notice. This is annoying with
>pedestrians, but more dangerous with cyclists (since they're moving
>faster and thus provide less margin for avoiding them safely).
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark's right. I don't know what it is, but talking on a cell phone,
even hands free, is much more detrimental to driving than should be
the case. There have been many times when I'm wondering why a car is
behaving in an unusual manner and I see that the driver is talking and
no one is in the car.

Now, it is still possible that the driver is just plain crazy, but we
can safely assume that the driver is talking on the phone. Often they
are holding one, but sometimes there is just something dangling from
their ear.

Someone once told me that the problem is a lack of visual cues that
you normally get from talking with someone in person that you don't
get on the phone. It seems to be the case. When talking to someone in
person, I can often do something else at the same time. That isn't the
case even talking on a regular phone.

Whatever it is, cell phones in cars are just bad ideas. I'm guilty of
it also and I do try to pull over if I need to make a call, or at
least do it at a red light and end it as quickly as I can.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:32:39 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

>>>So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
>>>evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!
>>
>>You probably didn't even see her before jumping out into the street.
>>You were only looking for cars maybe?
>>Were you in a cross-walk or were you jay-walking? I've found that
>>jaywalkers are usually drivers who've just left their cars.
>
>Careful Zoot - you'll pull a muscle trying to jump to so many
>conclusions (entirely without any suggestion that they're right) at
>once.
>
>It appears that you're just as willing to blindly believe that all
>cyclists are innocent of stupidity, just as you do assuming all
>drivers are guilty.

I'd no more step in front of an approaching bicycle than I'd step in
front of an approaching bus.

Something about the story doesn't make sense.
I'm guessing he didn't notice the bike or misjudged its speed.

Typical scenario: park mid-block, get out on the street side and dash
across it after glancing to see that there are no _cars_ coming.

Granted, there also exists the possibility that the cyclist didn't
yield to his right-of-way in a crosswalk. But, I'd put money on his
not noticing the approaching bicycle. They're hard to see when you're
only looking for something larger as non-cyclists are wont to do.
--
zk

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:48:44 -0800, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer you, Zoot. I hope I'll have enough
sense not to do it again.

: On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:32:39 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
: wrote:
:
: >>>So who did I (a pedestrian) have to dodge while crossing the street yesterday
: >>>evening? A woman riding a bicycle while talking on a (hand-held) cell phone!
: >>
: >>You probably didn't even see her before jumping out into the street.
: >>You were only looking for cars maybe?
: >>Were you in a cross-walk or were you jay-walking? I've found that
: >>jaywalkers are usually drivers who've just left their cars.
: >
: >Careful Zoot - you'll pull a muscle trying to jump to so many
: >conclusions (entirely without any suggestion that they're right) at
: >once.
: >
: >It appears that you're just as willing to blindly believe that all
: >cyclists are innocent of stupidity, just as you do assuming all
: >drivers are guilty.
:
: I'd no more step in front of an approaching bicycle than I'd step in
: front of an approaching bus.

Neither would I. Busses usually stop where the traffic laws require it.
Bicycles, in my experience, seldom do.

: Something about the story doesn't make sense.
: I'm guessing he didn't notice the bike or misjudged its speed.

Wrong on both counts.

: Typical scenario: park mid-block, get out on the street side and dash
: across it after glancing to see that there are no _cars_ coming.

Actual scenario: Walked out of the back door of my office building, preparing
to cross a quiet one-way street. Saw the bicycle plainly, travelling uphill on
the far side. Started to cross, since she'd have plenty of time to pass me
before I got to her side of the street. But as I reached the middle, she
suddenly veered towards me (with one hand in the middle of the handlebars, the
other holding a cell phone), so I backed off. It was no big deal, and I posted
the incident only as a counterpoint to your previous pompous pronouncements. I
included a smiley face, which I notice you omitted when you quoted my article.

I was headed for the subway. My car was parked at a commuter train station
twenty miles away.

: Granted, there also exists the possibility that the cyclist didn't
: yield to his right-of-way in a crosswalk. But, I'd put money on his
: not noticing the approaching bicycle. They're hard to see when you're
: only looking for something larger as non-cyclists are wont to do.

I hope you don't risk your money so foolishly in real life.

Bob

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:00:00 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>: I'd no more step in front of an approaching bicycle than I'd step in
>: front of an approaching bus.
>
>Neither would I. Busses usually stop where the traffic laws require it.
>Bicycles, in my experience, seldom do.
>

While bus drivers are better at following rules, scud scum and
bicyclists are about par. You worthless caged asswipes speed
everywhere while breaking all the other traffic regulations as well.
Then you've got the gall to whine about the traffic jams you've
created. I've no respect for habitual drivers because their brains
turn to shit as soon as they get behind the wheel.

>Actual scenario: Walked out of the back door of my office building, preparing
>to cross a quiet one-way street. Saw the bicycle plainly, travelling uphill on
>the far side. Started to cross, since she'd have plenty of time to pass me
>before I got to her side of the street. But as I reached the middle, she
>suddenly veered towards me (with one hand in the middle of the handlebars, the
>other holding a cell phone), so I backed off. It was no big deal, and I posted
>the incident only as a counterpoint to your previous pompous pronouncements. I
>included a smiley face, which I notice you omitted when you quoted my article.

Stuff your smileys. It sounds to me like she changing her course so
as to go behind you in case you made a dash for the curb. Instead you
froze like a dumfuk in the middle of the road. I don't like dancing
with pedestrians while riding with only one hand that's nowhere near
a brake.

I can't count the number of times I've been forced to avoid the
stunned cell-yakking scud scum. It's not a big deal for me either.
They're the most common type of filth on the road.
--
zk

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:00:00 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>>Actual scenario: Walked out of the back door of my office building, preparing
>>to cross a quiet one-way street. Saw the bicycle plainly, travelling uphill on
>>the far side. Started to cross, since she'd have plenty of time to pass me
>>before I got to her side of the street. But as I reached the middle, she
>>suddenly veered towards me (with one hand in the middle of the handlebars, the
>>other holding a cell phone), so I backed off. It was no big deal, and I posted
>>the incident only as a counterpoint to your previous pompous pronouncements. I
>>included a smiley face, which I notice you omitted when you quoted my article.
>
>Stuff your smileys. It sounds to me like she changing her course so
>as to go behind you in case you made a dash for the curb. Instead you
>froze like a dumfuk in the middle of the road. I don't like dancing
>with pedestrians while riding with only one hand that's nowhere near
>a brake.
>
>I can't count the number of times I've been forced to avoid the
>stunned cell-yakking scud scum. It's not a big deal for me either.
>They're the most common type of filth on the road.

Seems like now Zoot's got two kinds of personal demons to deal with in
his scary universe. Drivers and pedestrians. At least he'll no
longer have to consider the viewpoint of about 99% of the population
this way. Pretty soon it'll be up to everyone who doesn't ride the
same kind of bike he does, I predict (and he'll move into a cave and
we'll never hear from him again).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:00:00 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>
> >>Actual scenario: Walked out of the back door of my office building, preparing
> >>to cross a quiet one-way street. Saw the bicycle plainly, travelling uphill on
> >>the far side. Started to cross, since she'd have plenty of time to pass me
> >>before I got to her side of the street. But as I reached the middle, she
> >>suddenly veered towards me (with one hand in the middle of the handlebars, the
> >>other holding a cell phone), so I backed off. It was no big deal, and I posted
> >>the incident only as a counterpoint to your previous pompous pronouncements. I
> >>included a smiley face, which I notice you omitted when you quoted my article.
> >
> >Stuff your smileys. It sounds to me like she changing her course so
> >as to go behind you in case you made a dash for the curb. Instead you
> >froze like a dumfuk in the middle of the road. I don't like dancing
> >with pedestrians while riding with only one hand that's nowhere near
> >a brake.
> >
> >I can't count the number of times I've been forced to avoid the
> >stunned cell-yakking scud scum. It's not a big deal for me either.
> >They're the most common type of filth on the road.
>
> Seems like now Zoot's got two kinds of personal demons to deal with in
> his scary universe. Drivers and pedestrians. At least he'll no
> longer have to consider the viewpoint of about 99% of the population
> this way. Pretty soon it'll be up to everyone who doesn't ride the
> same kind of bike he does, I predict (and he'll move into a cave and
> we'll never hear from him again).

I disagree.

People like Zoot will make sure they're a thorn is as many butts as possible.

Notan