Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

donquijote1954

Hey, anonymous drivers with an addiction to gas, your vehicle causes
death and mayhem. Just like if you drink and drive, when you talk on
the cell phone, or any kind of reckless behavior, you carry a license
to kill...

Nikolas Barkelay

Montreal, d. 22.September.2002, hit in traffic

I wrote this on this night, Thursday September 26 2002, in honour of
Nikolas Barkelay, following an over-hundred-strong bicycle courier
critical mass here in Montreal, in memory of our fallen courier
comrade...

I am still moved tonight by the events that have transpired in the
last week following Nikolas Barkelay's accident and death...an almost
unknown bike messenger who died so sadly and so violently on his bike
after barely 3 months in this noble trade...a young 22 year old who
had a dream, which ended so suddenly, like shattered glass. A brave
warrior for whom over 100 of us rode for, in his memory, on this
evening tainted by sadness and recognition of the dangers we all face
every day as bicycle messengers in this urban jungle we call
home...over a hundred of us all upon our steel horses through the
streets of downtown Montreal, escorted by Nikolas's grieving parents,
no driver daring to honk at us as we are so used to during the day...a
strangely respectful procession through town, on our bicycles, in
memory of a fallen messenger who no one ever really got to know...

....

"The number-one danger is people on cell phones," says Joe Hendry, the
Toronto-based media spokesman for the International Federation of Bike
Messengers' Associations, a five-year-old international advocacy
organization that also puts on world championship races for couriers.
"That and door prizes. I've heard about people getting into
altercations, and I know one guy who had a cabbie throw a tire iron at
him. But [careless car drivers] are the biggest causes of accidents
for bike messengers." But not of fatalities. Hendry says that, "90 per
cent of deaths are caused by a truck, a bus, a van or an SUV."

http://www.ahalenia.com/memorial/nbarkelay.html

Pat

On Feb 24, 1:15*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

Pat

On Feb 24, 1:14*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.

Just exactly who is "society"?

If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are pissed off at the
world, then what do you know anyway....

donquijote1954

"it is not uncommon to hear cyclists being told by cops that the 'law
of the jungle' exists on the road."

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1735

I just want drivers and authorities to acknowledge that there's such
law at work on our roads and that we cyclists (and everything on two
wheels or legs) are at the bottom of the food chain, and that we need
special laws that protect us. By the way, the dangerous drivers are
the predators of this jungle.

Eric Vey

Pat wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:15 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
> makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
> see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
> sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
> bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I don't know of any state that has outlawed cell phones while driving.
But you ought to know that yours is a pretty poor argument. Some people
use that same argument when talking about the outlawing of crack. Do you
think crack should be legalized because of that argument?

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 24, 2:16Â*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. Â*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."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

> 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.

What hypocrisy? They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI. It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.


> > 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.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. So let's keep a sense of reality here.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:47 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

CT has a similar ban.

In my experience, the cell phone ban in CT and NY is about as
effective as the laws requiring a stop before a right run on red,
those restricting loud exhausts and opaque dark window tint, and those
requiring a front license plate.

We should make more motor vehicle laws to not enforce. <G>

Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat
<groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

>
>Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.

Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are. Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...

While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order. Driving is the same. I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle. Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all. If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road. If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.

If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

donquijote1954

On Feb 24, 4:36*pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:15*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. *What does it do? *It
> makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. *So when our kids
> see it, they see us breaking the law. *It teaches them that adults
> sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. *It's an incredibly
> bad thing for the kids to see. *But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?

Cell phone policies in different countries and states...

http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

donquijote1954

On Feb 24, 4:40*pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:14*pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Just exactly who is "society"?
>
> If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are pissed off at the
> world, then what do you know anyway....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's the sheep, the people who condemn the drunk driver, but tolerate
the phone. But I'm not pissed off at the world just at its hypocrisy.

donquijote1954

On Feb 24, 5:25*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > 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."
>
> Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
> the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
> and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
> not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
> instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

>
> > 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.
>
> What hypocrisy? *They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
> was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
> or just under the legal limit for DUI. *It's hardly compabable with
> driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
> do. *Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
> considered. *If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
> risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
> driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

>
> > > 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.
>
> I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
> while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. *It's an ideal time to
> call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
> minutes late". *I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
> legally stopped on the road. *So let's keep a sense of reality here.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

donquijote1954

On Feb 24, 5:55*pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
<DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat
>
> <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> >Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.
>
> Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
> enforced.
>
> Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
> skills and no situational awareness are. * *Those folks are just as
> distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
> etc...
>
> While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
> controllers, in that order. *Driving is the same. *I can talk on the
> phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
> vehicle. *Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
> safe to carry on at all. * *If I need to have serious, in-depth
> conversation, I need to pull off the road. *If driving attention
> warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.
>
> If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

I said before we need better laws and better enforcement, which is the
way to stop the road terrorists...

Would you allow known terrorists to run around with bombs? Well, cell
phones are such a thing in the hands of dangerous drivers.

Eric Vey

donquijote1954 wrote:

>
> I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
> in other countries?
>
> Cell phone policies in different countries and states...
>
> http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

"This page lists those countries that have banned the use of a cell
phone when driving unless used with some form of hands-free kit."

So that's a pretty useless page.

It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not
driving with one hand.

In the US, I think only California will have a law totally banning them
while driving. Watching TV while driving has been illegal forever (the
TV was legal, but it had to be placed so that the driver couldn't
watch), but I've noticed a few drivers have installed TV's where they
can see them anyway.

Bill Z.

donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 24, 5:25Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > On Feb 24, 2:16Â*am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes:

> > > "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."
> >
> > Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
> > the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
> > and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
> > not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
> > instantly.
>
> But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
> it's a greater risk.

The author was clearly talking about the risk per individual.

> > What hypocrisy? Â*They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
> > was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
> > or just under the legal limit for DUI. Â*It's hardly compabable with
> > driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
> > do. Â*Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
> > considered. Â*If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
> > risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
> > driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.
>
> A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
> over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
> both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

YOU can't be serious. The U.S. is not "so strict" about DUI compared
to several European countries, which have far stricter standards.

> > I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
> > while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. Â*It's an ideal time to
> > call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
> > minutes late". Â*I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
> > legally stopped on the road. Â*So let's keep a sense of reality here.
> >
> > --
> > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
> they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

Around here, when you get have bad enough traffic to delay you 15
minutes and you are stuck at a red light, chances are you won't
get through the light on one cycle, and chances are you won't be
in the first car in a very long queue. There's plenty of time
to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you
might get to start moving again.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB