CELL PHONE AND DRIVING

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:20:17 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>
>
>> Letting convicted drunk drivers and speeders off with fines is equally
>> crazy. 42,000 americans are murdered every year by psychopathic
>> drivers and yet boobus americanus thinks terrorism is a bigger issue
>> because 5 years ago 3,000 americans got killed.
>
>This is all simply untrue.

Sorry you can't think but the fact is terrorism is a microscopic
problem and unthinking boobs like you have been misled by the govt
and their media shills into believing otherwise.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> I'm sure you'd like to believe that, since they get to live in this
> paradise and you can't afford to. Your jealousy aside, cell phone
> yakking LLBs exist in every state in the union, and in every country
> in the world where automobiles are used and cellular service is
> available.

Well, actually, I think many Southern California driverss are self-serving
arrogant SOBs, and I live here. But I agree, cell-phone yakking LLBs exist
everywhere.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:20:17 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Letting convicted drunk drivers and speeders off with fines is equally
> >> crazy. 42,000 americans are murdered every year by psychopathic
> >> drivers and yet boobus americanus thinks terrorism is a bigger issue
> >> because 5 years ago 3,000 americans got killed.
> >
> >This is all simply untrue.
>
> Sorry you can't think but the fact is terrorism is a microscopic
> problem and unthinking boobs like you have been misled by the govt
> and their media shills into believing otherwise.

I wasn't talking about anything to do with terrorism, but rather the
nonsense about 42,000 people being "murdered".

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> cell phone
> yakking LLBs exist in every state in the union, and in every country
> in the world where automobiles are used and cellular service is
> available.

It's getting even worse. People riding bikes are starting to use cell
phones while they ride. One made a left turn right in front of me
(while I was attempting to pass them on my bike several months ago).

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:36:01 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:20:17 GMT, Alan Baker >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Letting convicted drunk drivers and speeders off with fines is equally
>> >> crazy. 42,000 americans are murdered every year by psychopathic
>> >> drivers and yet boobus americanus thinks terrorism is a bigger issue
>> >> because 5 years ago 3,000 americans got killed.
>> >
>> >This is all simply untrue.
>>
>> Sorry you can't think but the fact is terrorism is a microscopic
>> problem and unthinking boobs like you have been misled by the govt
>> and their media shills into believing otherwise.
>
>I wasn't talking about anything to do with terrorism, but rather the
>nonsense about 42,000 people being "murdered".

OK OK - I agree some of the people who died on the highways were
killed by their own recklessness and that's not murder. But i think
it's time we called it murder when someone is killed by the
recklessness of another driver. At the very least manslaughter.
Certainly it's insane to call it an "accident" and sweep it under the
rug as is routinely done.

DTJ wrote:
> On 02 Jul 2006 18:03:54 GMT, "Harry K." > wrote:
>
> >While these assholes are entitled to be assholes, their reckless lifestyle
> >could kill others on the road. The fact that the lawmakers are so slow in
> >banning the use of cell phone while driving speaks for the intense lobbying
>
> Irrelevant. Government just keeps on passing more restrictions on
> people because we allow it. We don't need any more.
>
> What we need is for the cops to get off their asses and take care of
> the bad drivers out there who are causing thousands of wrecks,
> billions in property damage, billions in lost income and wasted fuel,
> et cetera. But no, they allow trucks to drive in the left frickin
> lane on I294, and people to block traffic due to complete
> incompetence.

I agree that its very dangerous. People do not pay attention to other
drivers when they are on their cell phones. In Washington DC you get
ticketed for talking on a phone in the car...I think the fine is $100.
I don't know how much they enforce it but it's a start at least.

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:36:01 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:20:17 GMT, Alan Baker >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Letting convicted drunk drivers and speeders off with fines is equally
> >> >> crazy. 42,000 americans are murdered every year by psychopathic
> >> >> drivers and yet boobus americanus thinks terrorism is a bigger issue
> >> >> because 5 years ago 3,000 americans got killed.
> >> >
> >> >This is all simply untrue.
> >>
> >> Sorry you can't think but the fact is terrorism is a microscopic
> >> problem and unthinking boobs like you have been misled by the govt
> >> and their media shills into believing otherwise.
> >
> >I wasn't talking about anything to do with terrorism, but rather the
> >nonsense about 42,000 people being "murdered".
>
> OK OK - I agree some of the people who died on the highways were
> killed by their own recklessness and that's not murder. But i think
> it's time we called it murder when someone is killed by the
> recklessness of another driver. At the very least manslaughter.
> Certainly it's insane to call it an "accident" and sweep it under the
> rug as is routinely done.

When people really are killed by recklessness their should be
appropriate penalties.

Exceeding the speed limit isn't de facto restlessness. Were all the
people who exceeded 55 before it was the law reckless?

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:27:01 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> was understood to have stated the following:

>But i think
>it's time we called it murder when someone is killed by the
>recklessness of another driver.

And for some reason you can't figure out why people don't take you
seriously. ROTFLMAO.

Spending time with your rump-rangin' buddies down at ye old homo-bath
house this extended weekend, el faggio? Did your boss give you some
time off the fry vat this extended weekend, loser? :-)


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

> Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
Mothers) said in rec.autos.driving:
> Spending time with your rump-rangin' buddies down at ye old homo-bath
> house this extended weekend, el faggio? Did your boss give you some
> time off the fry vat this extended weekend, loser? :-)

Dear God in Heaven! Do you mean to say that they actually let Loco Laura
handle *food* that others have to eat???

Oh, the humanity!

>>> >> Letting convicted drunk drivers and speeders off with fines is equally
>>> >> crazy. 42,000 americans are murdered every year by psychopathic
>>> >> drivers and yet boobus americanus thinks terrorism is a bigger issue
>>> >> because 5 years ago 3,000 americans got killed.
>>> >
>>> >This is all simply untrue.
>>>
>>> Sorry you can't think but the fact is terrorism is a microscopic
>>> problem and unthinking boobs like you have been misled by the govt
>>> and their media shills into believing otherwise.
>>
>>I wasn't talking about anything to do with terrorism, but rather the
>>nonsense about 42,000 people being "murdered".
>
>OK OK - I agree some of the people who died on the highways were
>killed by their own recklessness and that's not murder.

Murder requires intent to kill. That's not the case when someone
gets drunk and tries to drive home and ends up killing someone.
Neither is it the case when the guy driving a camper puts it on
"autopilot" (cruise control) and walks to the back to get a beer,
then wonders why it went off the road.

>But i think
>it's time we called it murder when someone is killed by the
>recklessness of another driver. At the very least manslaughter.

Murder requires intent to kill. It's the wrong term for a drunk
driver killing someone. Manslaughter might be appropriate.
Even if the driver was a cop engaged in a police chase and hits
an innocent bystander.

The "felony murder" law says that if, in the process of committing
a felony, someone gets killed, you and all of your co-conspirators
are guilty of first-degree murder. That way, for example, if you
keep the getaway car running while your buddies rob a bank, and one
of your buddies shoots a teller, YOU are guilty of first-degree
murder. It may even be applicable that if, in the bank-robbery
case, the bank guard shoots an innocent bystander or himself, YOU
are guilty of first-degree murder.

I propose a "felony drunk" rule (which is decidedly NOT what the
current law says): if you intentionally get drunk and then do
something illegal (e.g. drive drunk), then anything you did is
considered to be done intentionally.

Killing someone in an accident -> first-degree murder.
Winging a pedestrian -> attempted murder and assault.
Driving car off a bridge and killing yourself -> suicide.
Driving car off a bridge and almost killing yourself -> attempted
suicide and destruction of property.


>Certainly it's insane to call it an "accident" and sweep it under the
>rug as is routinely done.

An "accident" means it was not done intentionally. That doesn't mean
they don't have to pay for the damage they did and it doesn't mean
they didn't commit any crimes in the process.

Gordon L. Burditt