Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

Eric Vey

donquijote1954 wrote:
> You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
> drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
> latter may be just as dangerous as the former.

I suspect this is true. For many years, when you saw a car acting
"strangely" and it is 3 a.m., you could assume the driver was drunk.

But these days, when it is 10 a.m. and a car is acting just as
"strangely" when you ride alongside and peer in, the driver is talking
on a cell phone.

This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it.

Pat

On Feb 23, 6:54*pm, Eric Vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
> > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
> > latter may be just as dangerous as the former.
>
> I suspect this is true. For many years, when you saw a car acting
> "strangely" and it is 3 a.m., you could assume the driver was drunk.
>
> But these days, when it is 10 a.m. and a car is acting just as
> "strangely" when you ride alongside and peer in, the driver is talking
> on a cell phone.
>
> This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it.

You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving. If anything, if you
start to get tired, its better to call someone and have a chat and
wake back up than to no do so.

Besides, if you took all the phones away from people who use then
while driving, how would the cops talk to each people?

Pat

On Feb 19, 6:08*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
> go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
> near me.
>
> Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
> a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
> from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
> who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
> lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
> guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
> he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
> everything at once. Everybody does it, right?
>
> Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
> happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
> First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
> turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
> seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
> noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
> and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
> doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.
>
> It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
> all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
> politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
> (see below), but that's another issue.
>
> In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
> speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...
>
> "Red light camera solution?"
>
> "Big Boy" <bigboy6...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
>
> news:20021106022800.05358.00002719@mb-fw.aol.com...
> : These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
> :
> : I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
> : that they have them in Arizona. I am
> : in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
> : **** taking away even more of our
> : freedom.
>
> Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
> law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
> cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?
>
> Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
> anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?
>
> The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
> with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
> picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...
>
> ---
> jb3
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/az.g...d/thread/8efbe0...
>
> ***
>
> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty...&l2=the&l3=Bana...
>
> WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

Miles Bader

Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> writes:
> For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
> pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
> everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
> someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

I think you're projecting a bit there Pat...

Many of us on this group _love_ cities (I live in one of the biggest and
most crowded cities on the planet, and I'd never live anywhere else).
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change them for the better.

-Miles

--
The automobile has not merely taken over the street, it has dissolved the
living tissue of the city. Its appetite for space is absolutely insatiable;
moving and parked, it devours urban land, leaving the buildings as mere islands
of habitable space in a sea of dangerous and ugly traffic.
[James Marston Fitch, New York Times, 1 May 1960]

Amy Blankenship

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:3f333b8c-ba4e-49c3-b740-634e338dcf2b@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?
-------------------------------------

You're apparently really eager to have the city follow you. Why are you so
unhappy having someplace decent to live that you want it to become a city?

Tom Sherman

Pat ??? wrote:
> [...]
> For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
> pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle,[...]
^^^^^^

We are not looking for places to sell things. Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Eric Vey

Pat wrote:

>
> You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
> relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

Eric Vey

Pat wrote:
>
> For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
> pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
> everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
> someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

I used to live in a small town until 4 years ago. I liked it, but I
wouldn't ride my bike there.

Driving around there I saw people in their 90's driving. They would
never have dared to drive in "the city" because it was "too dangerous."
Yet I routinely saw them drive through red lights that they just "didn't
see."

There was a bicyclist that was killed a few years ago while standing 30
feet off the shoulder of the road. That's a long way off, but the judge
said it was just a "tragic accident." When judges use the word "tragic"
that is shorthand for "no penalty."

It occurs to me now that when growing up in the country and riding my
Schwinn Varsity to school every day, a distance of over 7 miles, that if
some dumbass had driven up behind me at 65 MPH (the allowed speed limit
at the time on country roads) and plowed into me, the judge would have
ruled that it was just a "tragic accident."

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
> drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
> latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
> that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
> real subjects....
>
> Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>

Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

The article also doesn't say anything about the amount of time
spent on the phone. Spending one minute per hour on the phone
while driving is far safer (acording to the results cited) than
spending the same hour driving with a blood alchohol level of
0.79, (ever so slightly below the legal limit).

It also ignores the fact that the call may reduce the amount
of driving by more than enough to make up for whatever increased
risk there is. E.g., you get a call to please stop by a store
on the way home to pick something up. The call takes 30 seconds.
By accepting the call, you end up reducing the amount of driving
by 10 minutes.

Doug Smith W9WI

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:03:37 -0800, Jack May wrote:
> Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
> carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
> law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
> be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Not a likely scenario.

- Objects in the road that weren't expected to end up in the road won't
have transponders. Wild animals. Debris blown into the road by storms.
Things that fall off vehicles. (semi retreads!)

- Who pays for the transponders? Required in every vehicle, every person,
and every domestic animal?

- As Amy suggests, it sure sounds like a golden opportunity for a massive
Denial of Service attack.

- Motorists won't accept it. Police can use the transponders to track
your location. Some don't want the police to know where you are at any
given second - others would simply be unhappy that it would make
enforcement of the speed limit much easier.

(they also won't accept it because it will make it impossible to pull off
stupid, dangerous moves in a bullheaded attempt to continue speeding when
traffic conditions don't permit it...)

(indeed, I think the latter condition will prevent the widespread adoption
of *any* type of autonomous collision avoidance system. A system that
*enforces* minimum safe following and passing distances will make it
impossible for the everyday 80mph speed bully to continue speeding. He'll
never accept it.)

donquijote1954

On Feb 23, 7:08*pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:08*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
> > go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
> > near me.
>
> > Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
> > a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
> > from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
> > who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
> > lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
> > guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
> > he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
> > everything at once. Everybody does it, right?
>
> > Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
> > happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
> > First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
> > turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
> > seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
> > noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
> > and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
> > doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.
>
> > It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
> > all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
> > politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
> > (see below), but that's another issue.
>
> > In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
> > speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...
>
> > "Red light camera solution?"
>
> > "Big Boy" <bigboy6...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
>
> >news:20021106022800.05358.00002719@mb-fw.aol.com...
> > : These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
> > :
> > : I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
> > : that they have them in Arizona. I am
> > : in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
> > : **** taking away even more of our
> > : freedom.
>
> > Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
> > law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
> > cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?
>
> > Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
> > anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?
>
> > The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
> > with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
> > picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...
>
> > ---
> > jb3
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/az.g...d/thread/8efbe0...
>
> > ***
>
> >http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty...&l2=the&l3=Bana...
>
> > WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
> pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
> everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
> someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the
political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from
Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor) to
Copenhagen (where bike facilities made all the difference).

Again, if everybody followed your advice you'd lose your paradise
mighty soon.

donquijote1954

On Feb 24, 2:16*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
> > drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
> > latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
> > that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
> > real subjects....
>
> > Cell phone driving = drunk driving...
>
> <snip>
>
> Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
> cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
> is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. *It's set low enough
> that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
> to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
> level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

>
> Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
> quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
> you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
> the call is very short).

Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station.

donquijote1954

On Feb 23, 9:32*pm, Eric Vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > You-all need to move to someplace sane. *Around here, there's no
> > relationship between cell phone use and driving.
>
> You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
> from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
> commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
> people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
> owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
> up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

donquijote1954

On Feb 23, 7:56 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <ah5qpf.743...@vcn.bc.ca>,

> > You can go ahead and thank your blessings for
> > being able to get around in your car. Don't
> > bother to think about the many people you ignore
> > and prevent from being so easily able to get around,
> > and who's personal liberty and quality of life you
> > steal, by driving your car (pay-off/trade-off.)
> > I guess they (we plebians) don't matter.
>
> My use of the car doesn't prevent others from getting around without one.
>
> In fact, due to the fact that public transit is subsidized and private
> automobile use far overtaxed, my driving makes public transit possible.

You also make safe bicycling impossible. A bicycle revolution is
waiting to have some room to grow and prosper.

This is the end of a great story, where the cyclists finally prevail,
only to be the object of a counter-revolution lead by the polluting
predators...

'Somewhere in a cave in some future time, when, I hope, earth above is
full of flowers and trees and birds and bees and is not a desert, a
group of clandestine worshipers will gather around the last, long-
hidden gas guzzler to dream about tooling down the road and running
cyclists off of the road. They will drink the ritualistic cans of
beer and puff the ritualistic cigarettes and morn the days when men
were men and the law of the jungle gave the right of way to the strong
and the powerful. And they will swear a violent oath: "When I grow
up, I'm never going to let anyone tell me what to do!" Then they will
hurry home before their mothers notice that they still haven't done
their homework.'

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/planet.htm