Re: Caution: Driver doesn't give a ****

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> No question about that. More American die in three days in motor vehicle
>> accidents in the US than have been killed, fighting for our county in
>> Iraq,
>> in over three years of war. The number killed in 2005 exceeded 43,000
>> The problem we have in this country is we allow drivers that do not know
>> how
>> top drive to teach others to drive, sad.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> That's because driving is a constitutional right envisioned by the
> founding fathers when they said: "All men are created equally fit to
> drive, even the Mentally Confused and Prone To Wandering..."
>

No. We have the right to travel anywhere we want, without some spook asking
to see "your papers, please". There is no legal right to own a vehicle.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]> "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>It (the hands free thing) was shown to be a joke within a month of the law
>>being passed in NY. NPR interviewed some researcher from Columbia
>>University
>>who did a very simple study. He put people in front of some sort of video
>>simulator which measured reaction time or something, and found that even
>>wearing a headset with microphone, a normal conversation was enough of a
>>distraction to cause problems. It was significantly worse for women.
>
> Is talking on a cell phone while operating a vehicle any more of a
> distraction than carrying on a conversation with the passenger sitting
> next to you in the same car?

Yes. Think about it.

"Doug Kanter" opined:
>
> No. We have the right to travel anywhere we want, without some spook
asking
> to see "your papers, please". There is no legal right to own a vehicle.

Yes, we have the right to travel and driving is a privilege... earned by
passing a test. If a person has proven him/herself to be unsafe, the
privilege can be temporarily suspended or permanently revoked.

I believe Don was speaking tongue-in-cheek when he said the founding fathers
said "All men are created equally fit to drive, even the Mentally Confused
and Prone To Wandering."

Bryan

"It should be possible to explain physics to a barmaid."
-A. Einstein

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:38:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>If you get into a weird situation, the passengers usually shut up, unless
>they're kids, in which case, you ignore them.

Just like a GOOD driver can divide attention between a conversation
(live or phone) and the operation of the vehicle. The good driver
will also make the proper decision on when it's safe to talk.

There's a big difference between talking while zipping along the
center or right lane of a wide open interstate on a 70F, severe clear
day, and negotiating a mall parking lot on the last Saturday before
Christmas. <G>

My wife can't walk & talk, so she's a hazard with or without
hands-free. Some folks, like pilots, are actually trained to
prioritize tasks and divide attention. Flying is first, as driving
should be, communication is towards the bottom of the list.

My state outlawed hand held phones. A month after the law went into
effect, we're back to everybody on the phone, including the cops.

"Bonehenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:38:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>If you get into a weird situation, the passengers usually shut up, unless
>>they're kids, in which case, you ignore them.
>
> Just like a GOOD driver can divide attention between a conversation
> (live or phone) and the operation of the vehicle. The good driver
> will also make the proper decision on when it's safe to talk.
>
> There's a big difference between talking while zipping along the
> center or right lane of a wide open interstate on a 70F, severe clear
> day, and negotiating a mall parking lot on the last Saturday before
> Christmas. <G>
>
> My wife can't walk & talk, so she's a hazard with or without
> hands-free. Some folks, like pilots, are actually trained to
> prioritize tasks and divide attention. Flying is first, as driving
> should be, communication is towards the bottom of the list.
>
> My state outlawed hand held phones. A month after the law went into
> effect, we're back to everybody on the phone, including the cops.

And some young punks do believe they own the road. Stuck in a 3 mile long
trafficjam at the 163d St Toll Plaza thanks to our Governor. The North Side
toll stations are all set up for Open Road Tolling, but the South Side ones
are half-a$$ed set up. 2 of 4 lanes at 82d St and 2 lanes going through
only at 163d. So now, all the automatic lanes are closed except for the one
posted 5 mph drive through lane. So no one is using the drive through
lane, but a bunch of people have their rear stuck out in it. So I have an
I-pass box and I start manovering out into the sort-of open lane. But not
going very fast because I don't have a completely open lane, I have barrels
on one side and bumpers sticking into the lane on the other, so I'm going
about 20, have to slow down for the I-pass lane anyway. Well for the last 5
minutes I've been hearing some a$$hole honking his horn most of the time.
So who pulls up right behind me as I'm going through the I-pass lane and
honking his horn and flashing his lights? Mister I must have a problem
cause I keep honking thinking maybe if I honk loud enough and flash my
lights enough, Mr Corolla will go faster (already doing 20 in a 5 MPH posted
zone) I came within an ace of throwing it into Park right there in front of
him, cause I was slowing down anyway going through the lane (I usually make
it to about 7-8. I figure they're not going to ticket me for that.) He
just keeps honking and flashing his lights. Then he yelled out the window. I
did show him the Hawaiian Good Luck sign and he yelled back something I
won't repeat here. I wished him a very warm reception on his eternal
destination! Well I got though the gate and he nearly ran over me getting
past me to go up the 80 off ramp to run smack into a smaller traffic jam at
the top of the ramp. Should have got his license number. No there wasn't
a spot for me to pull over to let him by before the gate, I had two places
in that lane that were barely wide enough for me to squeeze the Corolla
past between barrel and bumper.

Charles of Schaumburg

Should be numbers for "bimbo applying makeup in rearview mirror and
jabbering on cell phone while driving" and "dumb**** reading newspaper while
driving".

"Tomes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>R Philip Dowds wrote:
> >>> PS: Statistics tell me that I am most likely to be harmed, not by
either
> >>> terrorists or global warming, but rather by other drivers. So, if I
> >>> wanted to save American lives, would my best shot be spending a
> >>> kerjillion billion dollars on invading Iraq? Or on a nationwide
highway
> >>> safety program?
> >>
> >> Yesterday I saw this bumper sticker on a Hummer: "Caution: Driver
> >> doesn't give a ****"...
> >>
> >> And soon enough he cut off another car.
> >>
> >> I wonder if the authorities know about this kind of terrorism, of if
> >> they too give a **** about it.
> >
> > "Hello 911? This asshole just pulled a really dangerous move, and I
could
> > swear I saw her swigging from a Budweiser bottle. She's going west on
> > route..."
>
> Actually, we have in NJ a special phone number exactly for that. *77
(star
> 77) is the 'Aggressive Driver Hotline' specifically for reporting
aggressive
> drivers.
> Tomes
>
>

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:26:09 +0000, jmc <[email protected]>
found these unused words floating about:

>Suddenly, without warning, J. A. Mc. exclaimed (18-Feb-06 3:07 PM):
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:18:37 +0000, jmc <[email protected]>
>> found these unused words floating about:
>>
>>> Suddenly, without warning, Tomes exclaimed (17-Feb-06 10:12 PM):
>>>> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> "Tomes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, we have in NJ a special phone number exactly for that. *77
>>>>>> (star 77) is the 'Aggressive Driver Hotline' specifically for reporting
>>>>>> aggressive drivers.
>>>>>> Tomes
>>>>>>
>>>>> If NJ still has some of those insane rotary intersections, it's no wonder
>>>>> there are aggressive drivers. I wonder if those were a contribution by
>>>>> Robert Moses during one of his civic engineering hallucinations.
>>>> Yep, we still have them, lol. I live right near the 3 of them in
>>>> Flemington. At least they have now put up yield signs up in the
>>>> non-dominant flow directions. I remember when I was a kid the drivers'
>>>> manual said regarding circle rules: 'local custom'. If you did not know the
>>>> local custom it was an adventure indeed. Having grew up with them I see
>>>> them as no problem at all, but I need to watch out for those that have less
>>>> experience with the adventure. There is now a slow moving program to
>>>> eliminate the large circles, some in total, some in part.
>>>> Tomes
>>>> - from the land of the first jughandle, NJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They're called roundabouts here in the UK, extremely common. When
>>> everybody knows the rules (car on the right has right of way, for
>>> instance) they actually work better than traffic lights to keep things
>>> flowing. Of course, this is the UK so that doesn't always work out either.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how your NJ rotaries work, I know that the two traffic
>>> circles I used to go through in PA worked the same as roundabouts, just
>>> in reverse. I'm assuming everybody moves the same way around the circle
>>> though (here it's clockwise, in the US counterclockwise)?
>>>
>>> Still don't like them. With the really big ones here, which can have
>>> more than four exits, it can be very confusing on just which lane you're
>>> supposed to be in.
>>>
>>> Here's the scariest one I know of:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d5dlb
>>>
>>> and a short video: http://www.fotosearch.com/BYV203/intp006/
>>>
>>> Arc de Trioumphe, Paris. This is on a quiet morning. Imagine what this
>>> is like during rush hour! Our bus driver told us that most insurance
>>> companies won't ensure a car that gets in a wreck in this circle. Also,
>>> that buses have the right of way - hit a bus, and it's always *your* fault.
>>>
>>> There's an underpass for pedestrians. Can you imagine having to walk
>>> through that to get to the Arc?
>>>
>>> jmc
>>
>> France has (used to have?) one very simple rule ... unless signed or a STOP
>> sign, all traffic coming from the right has the right of way. IF you get
>> into an accident and your car is struck from the center of the hood around
>> to the post behind the front right passenger ... YOU are at FAULT.
>>
>> Used the ADT nearly daily for three years <G>!
>>
>Wow, and you lived to tell about it? I'm impressed. It scared the
>willies outta me, and I wasn't even driving!
>
When you're young, you're 'invincible'! <G>

Methinks you are confusing ones Constitutional right to 'travel'
unrestricted within the various states, with ones privilege of driving the
conveyance in which one chooses to travel. Get caught driving while
unlicensed, drunk or uninsured and see how quickly you will discover the
difference between the two LOL

mike hunt


"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> What make you think driving is a right, let alone a Constructional right?
>> LOL
>
> Many people who shouldn't be driving are doing it, so I guess it's
> understood it's a right. Whether I have the right, though, of SAFE
> travel is doubtful...
>
> Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the
> right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the
> ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be
> regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. -
> Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
> ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs,
> etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing,
> mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
>
> Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
> and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
> automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit
> at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life,
> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
>
> It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states
> have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and
> that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are
> other court
> decisions that expound the same facts:
>
> Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
> citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th
> Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
>
> Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove
> from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of
> personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or
> through the
> territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by
> other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App
> D.C. 287, 293.
>
> http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/DrivingRight.html
>

Much ado about nothing it seems. That is one scam one can easily avoid,
obey the traffic laws. I will be 80 next month and have been driving in
since I was 15. I have never had as much as a parking ticket let alone been
convicted of a moving violation. I wish we could avoid graduated income tax
laws as easily. LOL


mike hunt




"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That the prone to wandering is still thriving out there though is part
> of multi-million dollar industry that puts anyone behind the wheel, and
> everyone at risk. Well, so is the ticket industry...
>
> Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
>
> Traffic tickets are a multi-billion industry. They have virtually
> nothing to do with highway safety, but they have everything to do with
> money!
>

"jmc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Arc de Trioumphe, Paris. This is on a quiet morning. Imagine what this
> is like during rush hour! Our bus driver told us that most insurance
> companies won't ensure a car that gets in a wreck in this circle. Also,
> that buses have the right of way - hit a bus, and it's always *your*
> fault.
>
> There's an underpass for pedestrians. Can you imagine having to walk
> through that to get to the Arc?
>
> jmc

I remember doing the Arc circle. My main reaction in the letter I wrote
home was - maniacs! All that traffic, all those lanes, if you call them
lanes. I had to go around a couple of times just to get out, and that is
someone who learned driving in NJ, lol. Actually, I thought it was fun
<grin>.
Tomes

"J. A. Mc." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:45:34 GMT, "Tomes" <[email protected]> found these
> unused words floating about:
>
>>"davidj92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Tomes wrote:
>>>>> If NJ still has some of those insane rotary intersections, it's no
>>>>> wonder there are aggressive drivers. I wonder if those were a
>>>>> contribution by Robert Moses during one of his civic engineering
>>>>> hallucinations.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, we still have them, lol. I live right near the 3 of them in
>>>> Flemington. At least they have now put up yield signs up in the
>>>> non-dominant flow directions. I remember when I was a kid the
>>>> drivers' manual said regarding circle rules: 'local custom'. If you
>>>> did not know the local custom it was an adventure indeed. Having
>>>> grew up with them I see them as no problem at all, but I need to
>>>> watch out for those that have less experience with the adventure. There
>>>> is now a slow moving program to eliminate the large circles,
>>>> some in total, some in part. Tomes
>>>> - from the land of the first jughandle, NJ
>>>
>>> The last time I was in NJ, 1977 I think, the first car in the left turn
>>> lane went before the cars coming in the opposite direction through lane.
>>> The rest in line in the turn lane had to wait for the through lane to
>>> clear before making a left turn. Caused some unique reactions from the
>>> locals when I forgot this custom. Also, a local company merged with a
>>> company in NJ and quite a few NJersians were transplanted here. Took a
>>> while for some of them to get over this same habit.
>>> davidj92
>>
>>Yep, this is how it works here for a regular stop light with a left turn
>>lane, or even at a stop light without a special left turn lane. This is
>>just common sense here in NJ (from an NJ perspective, lol). The lights
>>turn
>>green in both directions and the first in the left turn lane easily and
>>without any problem just darts through to make his left turn before the
>>oncoming traffic even has a chance to get within the intersection. Easy
>>as
>>cake. I do this everywhere out of NJ and never found it to be a problem
>>anywhere else. Actually, most times if it has a left turn lane, it has a
>>green arrow that makes the left turn go in protected mode before oncoming
>>traffic goes green (although in rare cases it allows the left turn to go
>>last instead of first).
>>Tomes
>>
> Have fun IF you visit CAFA land ... IF you cause -any- oncoming car to
> apply
> it's brakes, you've made an illegal (and ticketable) 'left turn'.
>
> In NV, it's quite common, for the time of day, to have the timing of the
> left turn arrows move from first to last. The flow is computer
> synchronized
> and this permits the most flow in the major direction.

One of my big complaints around here is the stupidity of the lights. I wish
I had ones as intelligent as yours. I want to see variable timing dependant
upon traffic density. I want to see it go to blinking red/yellow when there
is no traffic at night in rural areas.
Tomes, who is not holding his breath on this

"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Christopher Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>
>> if you ask me they should totally outlaw the use of a cell phone by a
>> motor
>> vehicle operator while the vehicle is in motion...the "hands free" stuff
>> is
>> a joke.
>
> It (the hands free thing) was shown to be a joke within a month of the law
> being passed in NY. NPR interviewed some researcher from Columbia
> University who did a very simple study. He put people in front of some
> sort of video simulator which measured reaction time or something, and
> found that even wearing a headset with microphone, a normal conversation
> was enough of a distraction to cause problems. It was significantly worse
> for women.

Myth Busters had a segment on this, comparing the cell phone usage (where
they made the driver have a real thinking conversation) to actual drunk
driving. It was a good test (and I am one who always does not agree with
their methods). They were equally as bad: hands-free vs. drunk at the
limit.
Tomes

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]> "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>It (the hands free thing) was shown to be a joke within a month of the law
>>being passed in NY. NPR interviewed some researcher from Columbia
>>University
>>who did a very simple study. He put people in front of some sort of video
>>simulator which measured reaction time or something, and found that even
>>wearing a headset with microphone, a normal conversation was enough of a
>>distraction to cause problems. It was significantly worse for women.
>
> Is talking on a cell phone while operating a vehicle any more of a
> distraction than carrying on a conversation with the passenger sitting
> next to you in the same car?

Yes, very much so.
Tomes

"Tomes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, we have in NJ a special phone number exactly for that. *77
> (star 77) is the 'Aggressive Driver Hotline' specifically for reporting
> aggressive drivers.
> Tomes

Just in case anyone is going to actually use the number in NJ, it is #77
(pound, not star). I saw the sign again today....

If you use it, post how it went for the curious (like me).
Tomes

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:19:41 UTC "Mike Hunter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Methinks you are confusing ones Constitutional right to 'travel'
> unrestricted within the various states, with ones privilege of driving the
> conveyance in which one chooses to travel. Get caught driving while
> unlicensed, drunk or uninsured and see how quickly you will discover the
> difference between the two LOL

You hit my thought exactly - nowhere do any his citations extend the
right to travel to include the right to operate a motor vehicle or
other device. In point of fact, those citations are satisfied by
being a passenger in any publically available mode of transport - or
walking.

--
Will Honea

"Tomes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Christopher Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> if you ask me they should totally outlaw the use of a cell phone by a
>>> motor
>>> vehicle operator while the vehicle is in motion...the "hands free" stuff
>>> is
>>> a joke.
>>
>> It (the hands free thing) was shown to be a joke within a month of the
>> law being passed in NY. NPR interviewed some researcher from Columbia
>> University who did a very simple study. He put people in front of some
>> sort of video simulator which measured reaction time or something, and
>> found that even wearing a headset with microphone, a normal conversation
>> was enough of a distraction to cause problems. It was significantly worse
>> for women.
>
> Myth Busters had a segment on this, comparing the cell phone usage (where
> they made the driver have a real thinking conversation) to actual drunk
> driving. It was a good test (and I am one who always does not agree with
> their methods). They were equally as bad: hands-free vs. drunk at the
> limit.
> Tomes
>

Here's something that's related, found in the latest Scientific American.
Speech is processed in the left hemisphere of the brain, which also handles
images from the right eye. Native English speakers were easily able to
distinguish different blue & green squares when they were placed in their
right field of vision. But, when the subjects had to simultaneously rehearse
(verbally) an 8-digit number, it markedly lowered their ability to
differentiate the colored squares. The sudden need for speech borrows
computing time from the part of the brain that was studying the colors.

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Much ado about nothing it seems. That is one scam one can easily avoid,
>> obey the traffic laws. I will be 80 next month and have been driving in
>> since I was 15. I have never had as much as a parking ticket let alone
>> been
>> convicted of a moving violation. I wish we could avoid graduated income
>> tax
>> laws as easily. LOL
>
> Aunt Jemima won't get any speeding tickets either if only because she's
> always slow and inattentive. Only the latter bothers me though.
>

Cops here (Rochester NY) have been hammering overly slow drivers, since it's
often a sign of inebriation or an unnoticed death in the family (elderly
drivers who should've had their cars removed long ago). It's a very popular
law enforcement campaign, especially when it nails the morons who get onto a
65mph highway doing 38, and then take a minute to get all the way to 43.