Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:48:13 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:52:04 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Jul 2005 00:48:20 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>>>
>>>>> No, I think we only really have numbers on the cell phone being
>>>>> 300% more risky - and not that changing CD's or talking to
>>>>> passengers or turning around to swat the kid in the back seat or a
>>>>> dozen other distractions aren't _also_ 300% more risky than doing
>>>>> none of those. I just don't think anyone has those numbers...
>>>>
>>>>Strawman;just because other activities are distractions does not
>>>>make CP use while driving any less of a serious problem.
>>>
>>> So you want a nanny-state approach, where anything involving risk is
>>> banned?
>>
>>No, I just want a reasonable state, where things involving
>>unreasonably high risks are banned. And yacking on the cellphone
>>involves an unreasonably high risk. Quadrupling the risk of killing
>>someone over not yacking on the cellphone is unreasonable, especially
>>considering that your babbling does not serve any constructive
>>purpose.
>
> My _having_ the cell phone serves the purpose of being able to report
> accidents, house fires, drunk drivers, and lots other stuff that are
> all net good effects.

Which you can STILL DO,just not yakking while driving.

> But I guarantee you, if I can't use the cell
> for the purposes that I bought it for, it will be history, and I'll be
> saving $50 a month - and you'll be able to kiss all those good effects
> goodbye - at least from _my_ cell - and I just might be the _only_
> person around at some of these disasters...
>
> Dave Head
>>
>>Chris
>
>

Well,it sounds like no great loss to the rest of us.after all,by your own
admission,you don't make or receive that many calls.

And how many accidents or calls for help have you made so far???

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net