"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:160520091745266483%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gunk4u$nm4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
> <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do
any
> > of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws
> > have come from).
>
> then you'll really like the new iphone app that lets you send email
> while the camera is used to display where you're going...
>
> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/0...-finally-lets-
us-leave-the-house/
Good grief.
Are people really too stupid to be able to stop (out of the way of other
people!!) to send an email or answer the phone?? Very likely. :-(
Do most people REALLY need to send emails or answer phones calls THAT
urgently?!? Nope.
> But the most recent notable incidents involve text messaging. The train
> wreck last year out west and the incident noted here on the green line
> involved someone texting. And locally just before winter someone was
> texting and split their car in half when they hit a power pole while
> texting and they also knocked off power for a wide area for the day
> because it was the main feed into the area.
Doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive. Even better when
it's especially painful.
Your Name wrote:
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:160520091745266483%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <gunk4u$nm4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
>> <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do
> any
>>> of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws
>>> have come from).
>> then you'll really like the new iphone app that lets you send email
>> while the camera is used to display where you're going...
>>
>>
> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/0...-finally-lets-
> us-leave-the-house/
>
> Good grief.
>
> Are people really too stupid to be able to stop (out of the way of other
> people!!) to send an email or answer the phone?? Very likely. :-(
>
> Do most people REALLY need to send emails or answer phones calls THAT
> urgently?!? Nope.
It's easy to justify anything activity when you don't give a shit about
others.
Your Name wrote:
> "Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
> news:4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>
>> -Lipstick application
>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>> -Combing hair
>> -Applying mascara
>> -Shaving
>> -Reading maps
>> -Adjusting GPS
>> -Tuning Radio
>> -Selecting CD track/song
>> -Reading newspaper
>> -Reading book
>> -Eating hamburger
>> -Smoking
>> -Lighting cigarette
>> -Drinking coffee
>> -Eating fries
>> -There's more...
>>
>> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while
> driving > would be perfect.
>
> It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do any
> of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws have
> come from).
>
> One of the biggest distractions to a driver are all the other useless
> drivers on the road!! Ones who don't obey the existing laws, don't give way
> / stop when they are supposed to, don't indicate when turning or changing
> lanes, speed, etc., etc.
>
<snip>
Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!
Your Name wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:e6WdnRzHCuj_Q5PXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> Kurt wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.247945f69bf419929898ac@news-europe.giganews.com>,
>>> NightStalker <NightStalker@somewhere.or.other> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <VaudnQvRgMr5cZDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
>>>>> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
> news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
>>>>>> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
>>>>>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
>>>>>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
>>>>>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...ones_massachus
>>>>>> etts_ban
>>>>> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
>>>>> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
>>>>> WORKING.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the
> job
>>>>> non-city-employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
>>>> Australia. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>>> allow handheld. And there is much talk about banning their use
>>>> altogether, as the attention is still diverted away from the road while
>>>> engaged in a phone conversation with someone who is not in the car with
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> I have personally had the experience of having a lengthy conversation
> on
>>>> a hands-free phone in my car, and when the conversation is finished, I
>>>> had absolutely NO recollection of how I got to where I was. My
>>>> attention was on the conversation, while my driving was on fully
>>>> subconscious auto mode. That was scary when I realized it after the
>>>> call ended.
>>>>
>>>> Now I either have the phone switched off in the car, or set to divert
> to
>>>> voicemail. If I'm expecting an important call, I leave the phone on
>>>> hands-free and pull over when the call comes in.
>>> I've had exactly the same experience. I no longer talk while driving.
>>>
>>> Handheld use is banned while driving in California, but after the
>>> initial obedience to the law, many have returned to using them - now
>>> they divert more attention from driving to watching for cops while they
>>> talk.
>>> Oh boy.
>> Hopefully some of the resulting accidents will have the effect of
>> cleansing the gene pool!
>
> Unfortunately the resulting accidents tend to "cleanse" the innocent
> bystanders more often than the idiot who caused the accident ... and in some
> cases that idiot does exactly the same thing again (and again and again).
> :-(
>
>
>
"There are two kinds of pedestrians; the quick and the dead!"
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I_ednQRlOczwmI3XnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Your Name wrote:
> > "Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
> > news:4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> >> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
> >>
> >> -Lipstick application
> >> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
> >> -Combing hair
> >> -Applying mascara
> >> -Shaving
> >> -Reading maps
> >> -Adjusting GPS
> >> -Tuning Radio
> >> -Selecting CD track/song
> >> -Reading newspaper
> >> -Reading book
> >> -Eating hamburger
> >> -Smoking
> >> -Lighting cigarette
> >> -Drinking coffee
> >> -Eating fries
> >> -There's more...
> >>
> >> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while
> > driving > would be perfect.
> >
> > It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do
any
> > of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws
> > have come from).
> >
> > One of the biggest distractions to a driver are all the other useless
> > drivers on the road!! Ones who don't obey the existing laws, don't give
> > way / stop when they are supposed to, don't indicate when turning or
> > changing lanes, speed, etc., etc.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!
Let he who has driven in New Zealand (or Paris) not know truely hopeless
drivers. ;-)
"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
newsZWdnaQ7Iv7wN5LXnZ2dnUVZ_h9i4p2d@posted.inter netamerica...
> Your Name wrote:
> > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:160520091745266483%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> >> In article <gunk4u$nm4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
> >> <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to
do
> > any
> >>> of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws
> >>> have come from).
> >> then you'll really like the new iphone app that lets you send email
> >> while the camera is used to display where you're going...
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/0...-finally-lets-
> > us-leave-the-house/
> >
> > Good grief.
> >
> > Are people really too stupid to be able to stop (out of the way of other
> > people!!) to send an email or answer the phone?? Very likely. :-(
> >
> > Do most people REALLY need to send emails or answer phones calls
> > THAT urgently?!? Nope.
>
> It's easy to justify anything activity when you don't give a shit about
> others.
Unfortauntely that covers about 95% of the human race - the same 95% who are
dumber than a tree stump. :-(
"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-6BD868.16270917052009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <gupvef$4e9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > Let he who has driven in New Zealand (or Paris) not know truely
> > hopeless drivers. ;-)
>
> The two worst places I have ever driven are Saigon and Boston.
You're right. I'd forgotten about those crazy Asians darting all over the
place on their scooters / mopeds ... and Saigon's not much better. ;-)
Frankster <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>> allow handheld.
>
>Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
>phone use while driving.
Actually, there are parts of Colorado where it's illegal to use a
handheld phone while driving - *all* military installations.
The DOD laid down the law in 2006 for all military bases. You get a call,
you pull over immediately and stop the vehicle.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cZGdnSz8pIxHWY3XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> >
> > "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
> > suspension for a first offense."
>
> Sounds like a fine idea.
Nah. Too "politically correct". If they really wanted to stamp out such
behaviour then they wouldn't bother with a namby-pamby suspension and
instead simply fire them ... there's probably plenty of other people who
would take the job. ;-)
In message <4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> "Frankster"
<frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>> allow handheld.
>
>Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
>phone use while driving.
>
>I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>
>-Lipstick application
>-Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>-Combing hair
>-Applying mascara
>-Shaving
>-Reading maps
>-Adjusting GPS
>-Tuning Radio
>-Selecting CD track/song
>-Reading newspaper
>-Reading book
>-Eating hamburger
>-Smoking
>-Lighting cigarette
>-Drinking coffee
>-Eating fries
>-There's more...
>
>Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
>would be perfect.
It's generally called "Driving without due care and attention"
Your Name wrote:
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cZGdnSz8pIxHWY3XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
>>> suspension for a first offense."
>> Sounds like a fine idea.
>
> Nah. Too "politically correct". If they really wanted to stamp out such
> behaviour then they wouldn't bother with a namby-pamby suspension and
> instead simply fire them ... there's probably plenty of other people who
> would take the job. ;-)
>
>
If those people are civil service it may be almost impossible to fire them!
> In article <gupvef$4e9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> Let he who has driven in New Zealand (or Paris) not know truely
>> hopeless drivers. ;-)
>
> The two worst places I have ever driven are Saigon and Boston.
Trying to leave Boston in a car only gets you back. The only drivable trip
is to Logan.
George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/09 6:27 PM, in article
> michelle-6BD868.16270917052009@mara100-84.onlink.net, "Michelle Steiner"
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <gupvef$4e9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let he who has driven in New Zealand (or Paris) not know truely
>>> hopeless drivers. ;-)
>> The two worst places I have ever driven are Saigon and Boston.
> Trying to leave Boston in a car only gets you back. The only drivable trip
> is to Logan.
>
Boston is one of my least favorite places to drive! Typical is the
"airport" exit from some express way; you take the exit and, at the
bottom of the ramp you are left to guess whether to go left or right!
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> "Frankster"
> <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>> allow handheld.
>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
>> phone use while driving.
>>
>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>
>> -Lipstick application
>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>> -Combing hair
>> -Applying mascara
>> -Shaving
>> -Reading maps
>> -Adjusting GPS
>> -Tuning Radio
>> -Selecting CD track/song
>> -Reading newspaper
>> -Reading book
>> -Eating hamburger
>> -Smoking
>> -Lighting cigarette
>> -Drinking coffee
>> -Eating fries
>> -There's more...
>>
>> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
>> would be perfect.
>
> It's generally called "Driving without due care and attention"
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cZGdnSz8pIxHWY3XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
>>>> suspension for a first offense."
>>> Sounds like a fine idea.
>>
>> Nah. Too "politically correct". If they really wanted to stamp out such
>> behaviour then they wouldn't bother with a namby-pamby suspension and
>> instead simply fire them ... there's probably plenty of other people who
>> would take the job. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> If those people are civil service it may be almost impossible to fire them!
That's why you reassign them to a task that makes them quit.
Jer wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cZGdnSz8pIxHWY3XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
>>>>> suspension for a first offense."
>>>> Sounds like a fine idea.
>>>
>>> Nah. Too "politically correct". If they really wanted to stamp out such
>>> behaviour then they wouldn't bother with a namby-pamby suspension and
>>> instead simply fire them ... there's probably plenty of other people who
>>> would take the job. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If those people are civil service it may be almost impossible to fire
>> them!
>
>
> That's why you reassign them to a task that makes them quit.
>
And if they don't do the task assigned, you still can't fire them!
Before you can fire a civil servant, he has to do something like rape
the governor's daughter on the altar at the cathedral! Even then it's
not easy.
You can get rid of them eventually if they don't die of old age first
but it's not easy; it takes years of bureaucratic paper shuffling.
Jer wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cZGdnSz8pIxHWY3XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
>>>>> suspension for a first offense."
>>>> Sounds like a fine idea.
>>>
>>> Nah. Too "politically correct". If they really wanted to stamp out such
>>> behaviour then they wouldn't bother with a namby-pamby suspension and
>>> instead simply fire them ... there's probably plenty of other people who
>>> would take the job. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If those people are civil service it may be almost impossible to fire
>> them!
>
>
> That's why you reassign them to a task that makes them quit.
>
Next to impossible with most government employees. There was even a TV
program that had a segment about the NYC public schools. They showed a 4
foot long flow chart of all of the conditions necessary to fire someone.
So their answer was to have a do nothing school with no students (in
Brooklyn I think) where people who couldn't be fired could be assigned.
> >> If those people are civil service it may be almost impossible to
> >> fire them!
> >
> >
> > That's why you reassign them to a task that makes them quit.
> >
> Next to impossible with most government employees. There was even a TV
> program that had a segment about the NYC public schools. They showed a
> 4 foot long flow chart of all of the conditions necessary to fire
> someone. So their answer was to have a do nothing school with no
> students (in Brooklyn I think) where people who couldn't be fired could
> be assigned.
LOL! Reminds me of an episode of the classic Britcom "Yes, Minister"
where there's a newly-built public hospital fully staffed with civil-
servant administrators, but funding ran out before they could hire
doctors or nurses, so despite being "open" every day they couldn't
admit any patients.
In message <guudtr$vfv$1@news.eternal-september.org> George
<george@nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Next to impossible with most government employees. There was even a TV
>program that had a segment about the NYC public schools. They showed a 4
>foot long flow chart of all of the conditions necessary to fire someone.
>So their answer was to have a do nothing school with no students (in
>Brooklyn I think) where people who couldn't be fired could be assigned.
If that's the show I'm thinking of, one of the examples when they tried
to fire an under-performing teacher was that the review board decided
not enough observation was performed, so they monitored the teacher more
closely, after which time the review board decided too much observation
impeded the teacher's ability to perform by making the teacher nervous.
In message <4bmdnWV1Zt3pqI_XnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica> Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> "Frankster"
>> <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>>> allow handheld.
>>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
>>> phone use while driving.
>>>
>>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>>
>>> -Lipstick application
>>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>>> -Combing hair
>>> -Applying mascara
>>> -Shaving
>>> -Reading maps
>>> -Adjusting GPS
>>> -Tuning Radio
>>> -Selecting CD track/song
>>> -Reading newspaper
>>> -Reading book
>>> -Eating hamburger
>>> -Smoking
>>> -Lighting cigarette
>>> -Drinking coffee
>>> -Eating fries
>>> -There's more...
>>>
>>> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
>>> would be perfect.
>>
>> It's generally called "Driving without due care and attention"
>
>
>I call it depraved indifference.
If someone is injured, sure. If not, "driving without due care" is more
appropriate.
Of course from a lawmaker's point of view, the solution is always "make
more laws" rather then reviewing why existing applicable laws aren't
being enforced. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything
starts to look like a nail.
On Mon, 18 May 2009 04:03:18 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
>>would be perfect.
>
> It's generally called "Driving without due care and attention"
If you are weaving around or driving eratically while talking or texting you
can also get charged with reckless driving.
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <4bmdnWV1Zt3pqI_XnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica> Jer
> <gdunn@airmail.ten> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> In message <4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> "Frankster"
>>> <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>>>> allow handheld.
>>>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
>>>> phone use while driving.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>>>
>>>> -Lipstick application
>>>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>>>> -Combing hair
>>>> -Applying mascara
>>>> -Shaving
>>>> -Reading maps
>>>> -Adjusting GPS
>>>> -Tuning Radio
>>>> -Selecting CD track/song
>>>> -Reading newspaper
>>>> -Reading book
>>>> -Eating hamburger
>>>> -Smoking
>>>> -Lighting cigarette
>>>> -Drinking coffee
>>>> -Eating fries
>>>> -There's more...
>>>>
>>>> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
>>>> would be perfect.
>>> It's generally called "Driving without due care and attention"
>>
>> I call it depraved indifference.
>
> If someone is injured, sure. If not, "driving without due care" is more
> appropriate.
>
> Of course from a lawmaker's point of view, the solution is always "make
> more laws" rather then reviewing why existing applicable laws aren't
> being enforced. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything
> starts to look like a nail.
Recently, I ran across a pollster booth outside a shopping mall. I was
offered an opportunity to comment on an ongoing "Click it or ticket"
media campaign. My comment was I thought the entire premise was off the
mark. When they asked why, I simply said that the campaign's message is
not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of getting a traffic citation.
The message should be not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of permanent
disability or death. A traffic citation is the last thing to be
concerned about, not the first. Sometimes the value of law isn't
realized until a far greater price is paid. Hammer & nail, turkey &
dressing, no seatbelt & death. Some things were just made to go together.
> Recently, I ran across a pollster booth outside a shopping mall. I was
> offered an opportunity to comment on an ongoing "Click it or ticket"
> media campaign. My comment was I thought the entire premise was off
> the mark. When they asked why, I simply said that the campaign's
> message is not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of getting a traffic
> citation. The message should be not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk
> of permanent disability or death. A traffic citation is the last thing
> to be concerned about, not the first. Sometimes the value of law isn't
> realized until a far greater price is paid. Hammer & nail, turkey &
> dressing, no seatbelt & death. Some things were just made to go
> together.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 May 2009 22:50:24 -0500 Jer wrote:
>
>> Recently, I ran across a pollster booth outside a shopping mall. I was
>> offered an opportunity to comment on an ongoing "Click it or ticket"
>> media campaign. My comment was I thought the entire premise was off
>> the mark. When they asked why, I simply said that the campaign's
>> message is not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of getting a traffic
>> citation. The message should be not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk
>> of permanent disability or death. A traffic citation is the last thing
>> to be concerned about, not the first. Sometimes the value of law isn't
>> realized until a far greater price is paid. Hammer & nail, turkey &
>> dressing, no seatbelt & death. Some things were just made to go
>> together.
>
> So, did you suggest "Click it or Kick it"? ;-)
>
>
In message <br-dnUCaKcYeUonXnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@posted.internetameri ca> Jer
<gdunn@airmail.ten> was claimed to have wrote:
>Recently, I ran across a pollster booth outside a shopping mall. I was
>offered an opportunity to comment on an ongoing "Click it or ticket"
>media campaign. My comment was I thought the entire premise was off the
>mark. When they asked why, I simply said that the campaign's message is
>not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of getting a traffic citation.
>The message should be not wearing a seatbelt creates a risk of permanent
>disability or death. A traffic citation is the last thing to be
>concerned about, not the first. Sometimes the value of law isn't
>realized until a far greater price is paid. Hammer & nail, turkey &
>dressing, no seatbelt & death. Some things were just made to go together.
You're misunderstanding how humans judge risk.
For the majority of us, fatal traffic accidents are "things that happen
to other people" as a result of the fact that few of us have experienced
a fatal accident, and only a small percentage above that have had a
friend or family member die in an accident.
Conversely, I'd bet that a majority of people who can't figure out how
seatbelts work have received at least one driving ticket/fine, so
tickets are "something that happens to me"
In other words, while you're correct about the results, from a marketing
point of view, they've probably got the correct idea.
on 5/16/2009 9:12 AM (ET) Todd Allcock wrote the following:
> At 16 May 2009 06:45:45 -0600 Frankster wrote:
>
>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>> allow handheld.
>>>
>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
>> handheld phone use while driving.
>>
>
>
>
> So, is this "Colorado" you spek of west of Queensland?
>
>
> You snipped an important part of what you quoted:
> "Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
> _Australi_. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> allow handheld..."
>
> The United States isn't necessarily the only country with states!
>
Just like we appropriated the name America, we appropriated the term
'the States'. :-)
>
>
>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
> I'm (mostly) on your side- a general "distraction" law makes more sense,
> but also leaves it too subjective. Some people are just better at
> multitasking than others, and frankly, some are just much better drivers.
> (I do not claim to be in either of those groups!) My father had an
> uncanny ability to tune out the rest of the world when driving, and
> concentrate solely on the task at hand- an ability I do not possess.
>
>
>
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
New Zealand is currently looking at banning cellphone use (at least hand
held) while driving ... again! Must be about the third time, each with the
complete waste-of-piles-of-money "studies" and "expert" analysis to come to
the same conclusion that it is indeed an unnecessary distraction.
Re: Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles 
ZWdnaQ7Iv7wN5LXnZ2dnUVZ_h9i4p2d@posted.inter netamerica...
Linear Mode
