A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Yet another DUH!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 14th 05, 07:22 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:02:19 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

>>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.


No, your having your cellphone serves the purpose of you being able to
chat with your friends, reserve movie tickets and the like. How often have
you used it so far to save a bleeding man from death? Once in 30 years?
Oh, no, that was long before you got the cell. Guess what? You getting rid
of it won't change the chance of someone getting saved from bleeding one
bit.

> 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...


You might but in reality you aren't gonna.

No one will miss you, old man.

Chris
Ads
  #32  
Old July 14th 05, 02:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dave Head wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:21:55 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:
>
> >
> >If your kid is likely to choke on vomit or get in trouble, sit in the back
> >seat with him and let someone else drive.

>
> Not my kid. I don't have any. But you know that the average parent is going to
> be turning around every few minutes to have a look. Doing otherwise might even
> be chargeable as "neglect", esp. if the rug-rat were to do exactly that and die
> of asphyxiation.
>


It's painfully clear that neither one of you knows the first damn thing
about transporting kids in the car.

1.) When properly strapped into car seats, the kids really can't get
into any trouble.

2.) A kid puking is *noisy*. You do not have to observe the
little'uns every two seconds to prevent this made-up tragedy.

3.) The *average* parent isn't doing anything like you describe. You
know, they sell these nifty little mirrors that let you observe
back-seat happenings without any more glance than is required to check
traffic. But you'd know that, if you had to transport kids in your car.


When you have kids, get back to us about what it's like to transport
them.

E.P. (Two kids, no danger to other drivers.)

  #33  
Old July 14th 05, 03:40 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 14 Jul 2005 00:42:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2005 15:19:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:

>>
>>
>>>>> Since this "study" has the
>>>>> aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned altoghether,
>>>>
>>>>Prove this,please;That the "Aim" of the study was to *get* a CP ban.
>>>>I say the "aim" of the study was to find out how much of a
>>>>distraction CP use is while driving.
>>>
>>> Its obvious. The only thing for which the data is of value is for
>>> use in getting a cell phone ban.

>>
>>What about making driving safer?
>>Even if a ban does not get enacted,people may realized how much a
>>distraction CP use while driving really is. MAYBE.
>>Some have to have a collision before they come to their senses,some
>>not even then.

>
> There is that, I suppose. But I think the study was really
> politically motivated for the purpose I stated.


Sounds like paranoia.
What basis do you have for the IIHS to desire to ban CPs?
(other that the fact it increases hazardous driving)


>
>>>>> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply
>>>>> give up cell phones? A lot, probably.
>>>>
>>>>So,who cares? That's their choice.
>>>
>>> You might, if you have an accident on a not-well-traveled road and
>>> the next person, and only person that will be along that way in the
>>> next 1/2 hour, does not have a cell phone because they decided it
>>> wasn't worth $50 a month to have one that they couldn't use _most_
>>> of the time. Meanwhile, U are trapped in the vehicle and bleeding
>>> profusely.

>>
>>Heck,they could HAVE a CP with themn and still decide not to "get
>>involved"

>
> Yeah, but that statistic will not be affected by a cell phone ban in
> cars. Such people would be useless for the situation with or without
> such a law. They can be ignored for the purposes of the argument.
>
>>.And they COULD use it "most of the time",just as long as they are
>>NOT DRIVING while using it.

>
> Well, when _I'm_ not driving in the car, there's usually a _landline_
> around that I can use, and it doesn't come with a $50 a month charge,
> either. IOW, when I'm _not_ driving, then I mostly _don't_ need a
> cell phone to communicate.


How do all those incoming calls you mentioned FIND you then?
>
>>>>And they would not be "banned in cars",USING them WHILE DRIVING
>>>>would be prohibited,unless there were *justification*,like an
>>>>accident or serious crime committed
>>>
>>> Clue - I'm not paying $50 a month just to carry it around, not being
>>> able to use it, in case there's an accident to report.

>>
>>FALSEHOOD;that a CP "ban" would prevent people from making an
>>emergency call while driving.

>
> No, your statement is false, because some people would simply
> non-renew their contracts and sell the phone.


Again,so what? That would be their choice.
I believe that the vast majority would still keep their CPs,bcause they
would still use them a lot.You seem to believe that the only reason for a
CP is to talk -while you're driving somewhere-,and it's NOT.Maybe for
YOU,but not everyone else.

> They wouldn't _have_
> the thing with them. And even if they did, and thought they would
> only use it in an emergency, the battery would be dead when they went
> to acutally use it if they weren't using it routinely and therefore
> keeping the battery charged.
>>
>>
>>> I'm going to
>>> cancel or non-renew the contract and sell the damn thing...

>>
>>That's YOUR choice.

>
> Yep, and that will not be a unique choice. Lotsa people will do that.
> Those that do, who roll up on an accident or an emergency, will not
> have a cell phone with them, or they will not have a _working_ cell
> phone with them ('cuz they haven't charged the battey for the last 5
> years) and that accident won't get reported as soon as it otherwise
> could have. The delay could be critical.
>
>>>>> and removing cell phones from society,
>>>>
>>>>Which no one is trying to do with these bans.
>>>
>>> Which will likely happen to some extent as some people find that $50
>>> or so a month is too much to pay just to have it on the rare
>>> occasion that they are not in the car and also away from a landline
>>> phone,

>>
>>"Rare occasion",like they spend most of their lives in their cars.
>>GET REAL.

>
> It _is_ a rare occasion that I am not in the car and do not have a
> landline phone available to make a call. This area - everything is
> far from everything. All one gets done is drive, drive, drive. I
> dislike the area, and this is one of the big reasons. When you get in
> the car here, you're generally looking at a 1/2 hr trip each way.


YOU are not the average,then.

>
>>Most people will still keep their CPs,they still too useful.

>
> If 10% give 'em up, what effect will that have on emergency situations
> that are delayed in reporting them? There _will_ be an effect - no
> question. Its just how many lives are lost for lack of a timely
> response vs. how many lives are lost due to cell phone induced
> accidents.


Oh,get real.Prohibiting use -while driving- is not going to have that sort
of effect.
If it's such an emergency,the person should be stopping anyways,to render
assistance.And you seem to think you would be the only one passing by,that
other cars with maybe more then one occupant would not have a CP to use.

Besides,the major problem is not using a CP while out on the open
highways,it's using them in URBAN areas with higher traffic
densities.That's where a CP/driving prohibition would be necessary,and
enforced.

>
>>> I mean, the way it is now, if someone with a cellphone calls someone
>>> else with a cellphone, chances are _one_ of them is in a car.

>>
>>Not necessarily.There's no basis for this assumption.

>
> I base it on my personal experience.


Again,YOU are not the average.You just think so.
>
>>> That
>>> would mean that the vast majority of cell calls would not result in
>>> a conversation.

>>
>>Unfounded assumption.

>
> _Most_ of my calls consist of one or the other of us are driving a
> car. I can't be all that unique, nor can the people I talk to.


Perhaps you are.I think so.
>
>>> I doubt,out of maybe 200 or so calls I've made or
>>> received this year up to now,

>>
>>More than 6 MONTHS (~180 days)and you've only made or received 200
>>calls? AFAIK,most people make far more calls than that.

>
> I got to thinking - I think I probably have to revise it downward.
> Didn't realize that until I looked and saw that the last call I
> received was July 4, and this is the 13th. Last call I made was July
> 9. I probably have only had 100 calls this year so far. I don't use
> it all that much.


Then you would benefit more with a pre-paid like Trac-Fone;that is what I
use.You probably would save a lot of money.

And you just admitted that you "don't use it that much",so it would not be
that great a loss to you.For those few calls,you CAN wait until you stop
somewhere,or use a landline.
>
>>> that I've had any more than 5 of them
>>> where one or the other of us has not been in a car. Even if I could
>>> put up with the restriction, I probably _still_ couldn't talk to
>>> anyone I usually talk to, 'cuz they would be driving and couldn't
>>> answer. How valuable is that? Not very.
>>>

>>
>>What,you live in your car,always on the road?

>
> The car is about the only place I don't have a phone available unless
> I have a cell phone along. Most everywhere else, I can use a pay
> phone, or the phone on my desk at work, or the phone at home, or the
> courtesy phone in the health club, etc. But yeah, I'm on the road _a
> lot_. I put on about 35K miles a year.
>
>>And you neglect the advantages of having a CP in case of
>>breakdown,emergancy,etc.

>
> There's still a thing called CB radio, which does _not_ come with a
> $50 a month charge, and you _can_ blab your ass off all the way down
> the road and nobody's thinking about banning them. And that's
> assuming you don't have some other kind of 2-way radio.
>
> Dave Head
>


Again,you neglect the benefits of an inexpensive CP service like
TracFone,for limited usage.And having a CB is no guarantee that you will
connect with someone who can help you.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #34  
Old July 14th 05, 03:43 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #35  
Old July 14th 05, 06:22 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:21:13 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone
>>>> records. Its just one type of distracting activity.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately it is far more distracting than most other activities,
>>>resulting in an extreme increase (300%) in risk.

>>
>> Based on that one study which failed to distinguish between cell phone
>> calls made before and after the accident?

>
>There have been a number of studies now,and they all point to CPs as being
>a serious distraction while driving.


>This latest one is by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.


The Insurance Institute For Higher Surcharges? Now THERE is a
reliable source.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #36  
Old July 14th 05, 10:18 PM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Jul 2005 14:43:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>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
om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.


No, I _can't_ because once I can't use it where I spend _most_ of my time away
from landline opportunities, I won't _have_ it - I will have sold it and
canceled or non-renewed the contract.
>
>> 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.


Nope - only if I'm the one that rolls up on you while you're bleeding to death,
and there's not going to be anyone else around for the next half-hour or so,
and I have sold the cell phone.

Others will delete the cell phone from their lists of expenses, too, if they
can't use it where they most need it. This problem will _not_ be as isolated
as you might like it to be.

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


Reported a drunk driver a couple years ago. Other than that, haven't had an
opportunity.

DPH

  #37  
Old July 15th 05, 12:37 AM
DYM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 14 Jul 2005 00:42:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>
>>And you neglect the advantages of having a CP in case of
>>breakdown,emergancy,etc.

>
> There's still a thing called CB radio, which does _not_ come with a
> $50 a month charge, and you _can_ blab your ass off all the way down
> the road and nobody's thinking about banning them. And that's
> assuming you don't have some other kind of 2-way radio.
>
> Dave Head
>


BTW, you don't need to pay $50/month for CP service if all you want is for
emergencies. 911 will work on any CP, even if you haven't paid the bill is
6 months.

Doug
  #39  
Old July 15th 05, 02:48 AM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>> The Insurance Institute For Higher Surcharges? Now THERE is a
>> reliable source.

>
>Well,if CPs were not a serious cause of accidents,then what benefit would
>the insurance companies have to ban CPs?


To have reason to refuse to pay. "Ahh, yes, our driver ran a red
light while going the wrong way down a one-way street and speeding,
but YOU were using a cell phone. Claim denied".

And, of course, to get higher surcharges whenever a covered driver
gets a cell-phone ticket.

>And why are they not calling for bans of CD players,and eating while
>driving,or other distractions?


They haven't figured out how to market those yet.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #40  
Old July 15th 05, 03:27 AM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:37:14 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 14 Jul 2005 00:42:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And you neglect the advantages of having a CP in case of
>>>breakdown,emergancy,etc.

>>
>> There's still a thing called CB radio, which does _not_ come with a
>> $50 a month charge, and you _can_ blab your ass off all the way down
>> the road and nobody's thinking about banning them. And that's
>> assuming you don't have some other kind of 2-way radio.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>

>
>BTW, you don't need to pay $50/month for CP service if all you want is for
>emergencies. 911 will work on any CP, even if you haven't paid the bill is
>6 months.
>
>Doug


Yeah, I know, but I'm not interested in retaining it, when I could probably
sell it after giving up or non-renewing the contract, just to be able to do
that. Besides, the battery would almost certainly be dead 2 or 3 years down
the road when I wanted to actually use it for that.

Dave Head

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.