Please note the parallels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you would also have to agree that it shouldn't be illegal for people
to
drive under the influence of alcohol as long as they're using due care and
attention?

In Newfoundland, until recently, it was legal for the driver to be
drinking - actually have a beer in his/her hand - as long as they were
not drunk.

Until relatively recently it was the same in Texas. But who ever wanted to
drive in Texas?

What's wrong with Texas? Lots of good stuff comes outa there, like
Bo Diddley, and the right (beanless) way to do chili con carne.
Although they do have some strange ideas about barbeque. But hey --
it's eminently delicious.

I've met some very nice people who hail from Texas, and none of them
talk funny at all, or stomp into Sikh temples for the free dinner while
wearing cowboy boots & hats and brandishing firearms, or have a hate-on
for anybody.

So what is it that makes riding conditions in Texas worse than
anywhere else in the world? Besides the weather, I mean.

Quoted message said:

:::A day without an illegal Mexican is like a day in China.:::

A day without fellow people is like living on the moon with only
so much oxygen.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

----------
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Tom Keats)

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with Texas? Lots of good stuff comes outa there, like
Bo Diddley,

Hi,

Just for the record (pun intended), I think you might be thinking of T-Bone
Walker or Johnny "Guitar" Watson, who both hailed from TX. Bo Diddley was
born in McComb, MS and brought up in Chicago, IL.

Regards,

David Blakey, Webmaster,
BO DIDDLEY-The Originator
http://members.tripod.com/~Originator_2/index.html
A Celebration of his unique contribution to Popular Music.

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Blakey said:

----------
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Tom Keats)

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with Texas? Lots of good stuff comes outa there, like
Bo Diddley,

Hi,

Just for the record (pun intended), I think you might be thinking of T-Bone
Walker or Johnny "Guitar" Watson, who both hailed from TX. Bo Diddley was
born in McComb, MS and brought up in Chicago, IL.

<myself hanging head in shame>
Actually I think I got it from his "Say, Man" lyrics --
"South America," etc.

Thanks for the edification. The last thing I'd ever
wanna do is to dis' Bo Diddley.

You've got a good website goin' on there. Good stuff,
good job.

Y'know what, though? You wouldn't believe the fits 'n starts
I've had to go through, Googling the lyrics to "Cops and Robbers."
'Cuz I forgot title (I was searching on remembered phrases like
"reach for the sky", and "tombstone bullets and a ball and chain.".)
It's easier to find the Rolling Stones' cover version :-(

Got any recordings of Bo Diddley & Chuck Berry jamming together?
Ooooh, that stuff is good enough to make a blind man see!
That stuff is so hot, one could make grilled cheese sandwiches
on the music machine while it's playing.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

David Blakey, Webmaster,
BO DIDDLEY-The Originator
http://members.tripod.com/~Originator_2/index.html
A Celebration of his unique contribution to Popular Music.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

dvt said:

The Luggage said:

dvt said:

Mark Hickey wrote:
> dvt <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
>> "numerous studies."

[snip]

Quoted message said:

> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22
From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

>>>> Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
>>>> of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
>>>> being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Bzzzt. Please come back when you've been to Statistics 101. You can't
corrrelate the two sets of data unless you know the relative incidence
of drink driving and mobile use while driving.

Whom are you buzzing?

You. My comments would have been out of place after yours, but i agree
that putting them where I did messes up the attribution chain slightly.

TL

The Luggage said:

dvt said:

Mark Hickey said:

dvt <[email hidden]> wrote:
> So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
> "numerous studies."

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22

From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

Quoted message said:

>>> Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
>>> of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
>>> being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Bzzzt. Please come back when you've been to Statistics 101. You can't
corrrelate the two sets of data unless you know the relative incidence
of drink driving and mobile use while driving.

Now that I know you were buzzing me... there is no need for statistics.
Based on your response, I suspect you haven't read the studies, just the
brief snippet I provided. I did not include all the pertinent
information from the studies. For example, see the "Voluntary Risk
Assessment" table in the Harvard paper.

One study says that cell phone use impairs a driver similar to driving
under the influence of alcohol. Another study says that cell phone use
is less risky than drunk driving. It's impossible to tell if the
statement that started this subthread referred to impairment or risk.
Either way, the "numerous" studies seems to be exaggerated.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

Per dvt:

Quoted message said:

One study says that cell phone use impairs a driver similar to driving
under the influence of alcohol. Another study says that cell phone use
is less risky than drunk driving. It's impossible to tell if the
statement that started this subthread referred to impairment or risk.
Either way, the "numerous" studies seems to be exaggerated.

Seems to me like different people multiprocess at different effectiveness
levels.

When we were vanpooling to work some years back, I used to observe people
reading the newspaper while driving. Not stealing furtive glances... I mean
*reading* that sucker. The fact that our route was not littered with their
wreckage suggests some have whatever it takes to pull that off.

Similarly, with cell phone use, I see people who don't seem tb having any
trouble at all moving with the flow of traffic while talking on the things.

OTOH, there are the ones that drift from lane-to-lane and vary their speed for
no apparent reason - until you see the phone.

Me? You really, *really*, REALLY don't want to be on the same road with Yours
Truly talking on a cell phone. I'd say that, for me, equating it with a
certain level of drunkenness would be right on the money.

I don't see how it can be successfully legislated against. There's just too
much momentum. My preference would be for some actual enforcement of rules in
addition to the speed limit. Changing lanes without signaling, cruising the
hammer lane, passing on the right....

I'd also like to hear how they're handling it in Germany where people routinely
drove at speeds well in excess of 100 mph....
--
PeteCresswell

dvt said:

The Luggage said:

dvt said:

Mark Hickey wrote:
> dvt <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
>> "numerous studies."

[snip]

Quoted message said:

> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22
From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

>>>> Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
>>>> of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
>>>> being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Bzzzt. Please come back when you've been to Statistics 101. You can't
corrrelate the two sets of data unless you know the relative incidence
of drink driving and mobile use while driving.

Now that I know you were buzzing me... there is no need for statistics.
Based on your response, I suspect you haven't read the studies, just the
brief snippet I provided. I did not include all the pertinent
information from the studies. For example, see the "Voluntary Risk
Assessment" table in the Harvard paper.

I haven't read the papers. I was commenting on your use of the first
quote from the pdf to refute the second quote, using the phrase "This
one actually refutes your earlier claim:" I don't need to have read the
papers to point out that the bit you quoted cannot refute the second
comment (made by someone else). It is quite possible that the full
paper contains enough information to do so, but that's not what you
wrote.

The chance of being killed by a driver using a mobile (P) is equal to
the chance that any one driver using a mobile will kill someone (A),
multiplied by the number of drivers using mobiles (B). The second quote
only refers to the effect of using a mobile (ie A), not to B, so you
can't compare the arguments unless you have the rest of the data.
Again, the paper may contain the data, but that's not what you said.

Quoted message said:

One study says that cell phone use impairs a driver similar to driving
under the influence of alcohol. Another study says that cell phone use
is less risky than drunk driving. It's impossible to tell if the
statement that started this subthread referred to impairment or risk.
Either way, the "numerous" studies seems to be exaggerated.

See above

TL

The Luggage said:

I haven't read the papers.

That's your mistake, and I believe you were off the mark and a bit rude
with your buzzing noise.

Quoted message said:

I was commenting on your use of the first
quote from the pdf to refute the second quote, using the phrase "This
one actually refutes your earlier claim:" I don't need to have read the
papers to point out that the bit you quoted cannot refute the second
comment (made by someone else). It is quite possible that the full
paper contains enough information to do so, but that's not what you
wrote.

You're right. I should have made it clear that "this one" referred to
the full paper, not the quote that I provided. I apologize if you were
misled.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

(PeteCresswell) said:

Similarly, with cell phone use, I see people who don't seem tb having
any trouble at all moving with the flow of traffic while talking on
the things.

The fact that they are able to drive in a moderately predictable way
does not mean that they are safe while doing so.

If something unexpected happened, such as requiring a sudden stop or
swerve, it is far less likely that a driver talking on a mobile phone
would take the necessary action in time, compared with a driver not
similarly distracted.

Quoted message said:

I don't see how it can be successfully legislated against. There's
just too much momentum. My preference would be for some actual
enforcement of rules in addition to the speed limit. Changing lanes
without signaling, cruising the hammer lane, passing on the right....

cf the smoking ban - enacted last year in Ireland, this year in
Scotland, and to follow next year in England (and Wales and NI? Not
sure...). People said it wouldn't work, nobody would pay any attention
to it - and they've been wrong.

Drink-driving was once acceptable, but no longer. I see no reason to
believe we can't achieve the same level of intolerance and social
unacceptability towards phone-driving.

No idea what the "hammer lane" is - or (in the UK) what's wrong with
passing on the right!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Per Stevie D:

Quoted message said:

No idea what the "hammer lane" is - or (in the UK) what's wrong with
passing on the right!

In UK, it would be passing on the left.

In USA, "hammer lane" is trucker/commercial driver slang that refers to the
highest-speed (leftmost in USA, rightmost in UK) lane. AKA "The passing lane".

My extrapolation (i.e. I don't have any direct knowledge/expertise) is that
passing on the right is generally considered a bad thing for two reasons:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Visibility of the right (left in UK) lane is limited for drivers in the
hammer lane so passing on the slower-lane side creates a hazard.

2) Vehicles that pull out to pass are better off if they can promptly
swing back into the slower land without worrying too much if somebody is
passing them on the right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My limited experience driving in Germany (where cars exceeding 100 mph share the
road with triple tractor trailers pulling out to pass at 40-45 mph and they
claim a freeway fatality rate lower than the USA's) suggests only a few rules of
the road there. Few rules, but universal adherence...
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) Always use the turn signal before crossing any sort of white line
2) Always yield the passing lane to closing traffic (make easier
by #3)
3) Never, ever, pass on the right
-------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure there are more - but those are the ones that seem obvious to me....and
the ones most responsible for their lower fatality rate.
--
PeteCresswell

Stevie D said:

Drink-driving was once acceptable, but no longer. I see no reason to
believe we can't achieve the same level of intolerance and social
unacceptability towards phone-driving.

Well... much as I'd like for people to drive with all of their fullest
attention on the task at hand... I realize it just isn't going to
happen. *Life* is distracting! How many of us drive in a state of fully
focused meditation? More likely we are in zoned-out autopilot, while
our minds wander aimlessly... or worse we are emotionally upset (for
whatever reason). I'd like to see a law making it illegal to drive
unless calm and relaxed. Then there are all the people who have crappy
reflexes anyway, but are allowed to drive. And what about the people
with bad attitudes?

The campaign against drunk driving was clearly a joke... way more
extreme and overblown than it needed to be (like the campaign against
smoking, the war on drugs, etc)... and most of the legal limits are
rediculously low. They are usually set at level where "imparement"
becomes measureable... but all sorts of other things cause imparement,
too.

Per Ron Ruff:

Quoted message said:

and most of the legal limits are
rediculously low. They are usually set at level where "imparement"
becomes measureable... but all sorts of other things cause imparement,

Clearly, you have not observed Yours Truly with a half can of beer inside...-)
--
PeteCresswell