Cell phone junkies are as bad as drunks!

[KingOfTheApes]

This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES. And since CYCLISTS HAVE THE
MOST TO LOSE from a collision with the cell phone junkies and drunks,
we must place them in the "most wanted" list of criminals. Oh, the
authorities and politicians could be their accomplices if this were a
court of justice.

Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks

Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving

"A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while operating a high-
tech driving simulator. The simulator was used during a University of
Utah study that found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving
are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the
legal limit of 0.08 percent."

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have
passed cell phone restrictions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[Paul Boyd]

KingOfTheApes said the following on 30/07/2008 15:47:
> This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES.

Speak for your own country, not the UK where both are illegal.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Leo Lichtman]

"KingOfTheApes" wrote: "A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while
operating a high-
> tech driving simulator. (clip)
NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have
> passed cell phone restrictions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The study was based on driving with a hands-free phone. So California
passed a law making it illegal to drive while holding a phone to your ear,
while hands free is still legal. If anything, that will make matters
worse, because you won't be able to look at a driver and know whether he is
drunk-equivalent.

Talking on a phone, hands free or not, is a channel which sucks your
attention away from driving.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:04323e2f-d4b3-4a9f-b4ea-b52c0e54d55d@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

> This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES.

Of course not. The cell phone industry and the auto industry pay our
congressmen big money to leave the cell-phone-driving issue alone.

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:47:12 -0700, KingOfTheApes wrote:


> Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks

And have you seen where the law abiding section of the phone toting
Sterling Mossi choose to pull up when answering their phones? They are
stop immediately without regard to where they may be. On bends on islands
on junctions on the pavement on double yellows.... It's as if they are
acting out some perverse retaliation for a law which rankles with them.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Mark C.]

"KingOfTheApes" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:04323e2f-d4b3-4a9f-b4ea-b52c0e54d55d@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES. And since CYCLISTS HAVE THE
> MOST TO LOSE from a collision with the cell phone junkies and drunks,
> we must place them in the "most wanted" list of criminals. Oh, the
> authorities and politicians could be their accomplices if this were a
> court of justice.
>
> Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks
>
> Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving
>
> "A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while operating a high-
> tech driving simulator. The simulator was used during a University of
> Utah study that found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving
> are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the
> legal limit of 0.08 percent."
>
> http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
>
> NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have
> passed cell phone restrictions.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88



And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!

Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
be.

Just be happy...

Mark C.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Jul 30, 11:54*am, Paul Boyd <n...@home.but.at.work> wrote:
> KingOfTheApes said the following on 30/07/2008 15:47:
>
> > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> > SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES.
>
> Speak for your own country, not the UK where both are illegal.

A little feedback from Europe doesn't hurt America.

Likewise many Europeans many not know that in America is perfectly
legal to drive the way you please.

Call it "cultural exchange." ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

On Jul 30, 12:14*pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> "KingOfTheApes" wrote: *"A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while
>
> operating a high-> tech driving simulator. (clip)
>
> NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have> passed cell phone restrictions.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The study was based on driving with a hands-free phone. *So California
> passed a law making it illegal to drive while holding a phone to your ear,
> while hands free is still legal. * If anything, that will make matters
> worse, because you won't be able to look at a driver and know whether he is
> drunk-equivalent.
>
> Talking on a phone, hands free or not, is a channel which sucks your
> attention away from driving.

Never saw it that way, but an article that I read cites that 300 lives
may be saved in California by placing such restrictions.

Completely banning the phone may take something like another Civil
War. ;)

[Bill Z.]

"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> "KingOfTheApes" wrote: "A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while
> operating a high-
> > tech driving simulator. (clip)
> NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have
> > passed cell phone restrictions.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The study was based on driving with a hands-free phone. So California
> passed a law making it illegal to drive while holding a phone to your ear,
> while hands free is still legal. If anything, that will make matters
> worse, because you won't be able to look at a driver and know whether he is
> drunk-equivalent.
>
> Talking on a phone, hands free or not, is a channel which sucks your
> attention away from driving.

It's a bit more complex than that. Other research,
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080531084958.htm>,
indicates that a conversation is significantly more distracting for
visual tasks if the sound does not seem to be coming from where one is
looking.

Ideally, the orignal experiment mentioned in
<http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf>
should be repeated with a sound system set up so that the speaker seems
to be in front of the driver.

It may be (and checking in a simulator beats trying this on a highway)
that cellphone users should use hands-free devices that are dashboard
mounted with the speaker in front of the driver.

BTW, the California law could be a lot better - it technically makes
it illegal to make a call while stopped at a red light. If there is
a line of 10 cars in front of you, you'd have enough time to make
a quick phone call to tell someone you are stuck in traffic and will
be late, with the call completed before traffic starts moving again.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> The study was based on driving with a hands-free phone. So California
> passed a law making it illegal to drive while holding a phone to your ear,
> while hands free is still legal. If anything, that will make matters
> worse, because you won't be able to look at a driver and know whether he is
> drunk-equivalent.
>
> Talking on a phone, hands free or not, is a channel which sucks your
> attention away from driving.

This is pretty much my opinion also. In a couple years (decades) we'll
end up just banning talking on the phone while driving. Just like we
did with drinking and driving.

--
Dane Buson - nn07tp08@unixbigots.org
Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not
take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously.
-- Booth Tarkington

[ComandanteBanana]

On Jul 30, 1:14*pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:04323e2f-d4b3-4a9f-b4ea-b52c0e54d55d@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> > SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES.
>
> Of course not. The cell phone industry and the auto industry pay our
> congressmen big money to leave the cell-phone-driving issue alone.

Man, you have a way to say things in a crude yet precise way.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Jul 30, 5:54 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
> "Kent Murdick" <lutem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d86fbc2e-2619-4fb3-955a-56d8bc6dfb0e@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I saw a guy driving while playing the guitar and
> > steering with his foot.
>
> Wow - I can't even play the guitar with BOTH feet,
> let alone play AND steer with one.
>
> Oh, wait...you meant....never mind....
>
> Bob M.

That's nothing. Soccer moms manage to chat on the phone while changing
the pamper of the baby, and keeping an eye on the other kids. And they
drive the infamous SUV that are most deadly!

But they are nice moms, huh? ;)

[Jym Dyer]

> BTW, the California law could be a lot better - it technically
> makes it illegal to make a call while stopped at a red light.
> If there is a line of 10 cars in front of you, you'd have
> enough time to make a quick phone call to tell someone you
> are stuck in traffic and will be late, with the call completed
> before traffic starts moving again.

=v= This seems very very impractical to make an exemption for.
What if the call takes longer than expected for any reason
whatsoever? Well, then we can expect motorists to be driving
(or obliviously holding up the line of traffic) "just this
once," "just for a second," etc. etc.
<_Jym_>

[Bill Z.]

Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org> writes:

> > BTW, the California law could be a lot better - it technically
> > makes it illegal to make a call while stopped at a red light.
> > If there is a line of 10 cars in front of you, you'd have
> > enough time to make a quick phone call to tell someone you
> > are stuck in traffic and will be late, with the call completed
> > before traffic starts moving again.
>
> =v= This seems very very impractical to make an exemption for.
> What if the call takes longer than expected for any reason
> whatsoever?

When it's about time to start moving, you just say you are
in the middle of traffic, can't talk, and will call later.
And how is "I'm stuck in traffic and going to be late" going
to take longer than expected?

> Well, then we can expect motorists to be driving (or obliviously
> holding up the line of traffic) "just this once," "just for a
> second," etc. etc. <_Jym_>

Not really. Remember, I said "stopped at a red light" with
"10 cars in front of you". If the person you call hasn't
picked up the phone before the light changed, you just hang
up. Otherwise you probably have at least 20 seconds to
say, "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be late," optionally
followed by "have to hang up - the light just changed."
Since everyone would know the rules, the person being called
would know that the caller could only make a very short call
and it would be rude to not end the convesation quickly.

Also, you can send a text message - phones can store
pre-canned messages, so you can have a "stuck in traffic
and will be late" message that you can send. That may
be illegal shortly as there is legislation to ban sending
text messages as well - it wasn't in the original legislation
because of the time it took to get it passed and a concern
that a change would stop the process.

With the current legislation, there is no incentive to
wait until you are stopped before calling if you are not
going to park the car first - the fine is the same whether
you are driving in heavy traffic at 40 mph or completely
stopped. The safety implications are obviously quite
different.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[KingOfTheApes]

On Jul 31, 5:50*pm, "Mark C." <krucam...@verizonRMV.net> wrote:
> "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:04323e2f-d4b3-4a9f-b4ea-b52c0e54d55d@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians
> > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC
> > SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES. And since CYCLISTS HAVE THE
> > MOST TO LOSE from a collision with the cell phone junkies and drunks,
> > we must place them in the "most wanted" list of criminals. Oh, the
> > authorities and politicians could be their accomplices if this were a
> > court of justice.
>
> > Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks
>
> > Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving
>
> > "A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while operating a high-
> > tech driving simulator. The simulator was used during a University of
> > Utah study that found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving
> > are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the
> > legal limit of 0.08 percent."
>
> >http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
>
> > NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have
> > passed cell phone restrictions.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
> > "Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88
>
> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!
>
> Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
> that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
> distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
> sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
> be.
>
> Just be happy...
>
> Mark C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just be happy... Hey, that calls for a few drinks while driving! Party
like it's 1999 until you get stopped by the police or kill someone.
Cheers!

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc Mark C. <krucamRMV@verizonrmv.net> wrote:
>
> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!
>
> Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
> that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
> distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
> sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
> be.

Most of these are momentary distractions (with the exception of the
spaztastic child possibly). And even though they are momentary, you
hear all the time about people crashing their car while doing precisely
these things. People are on the cell phone for hours at a time (in many
cases). That's not a momentary distraction, that's a completely
avoidable long-term disability to your driving.

--
Dane Buson - nn07tp08@unixbigots.org
Performance:
A statement of the speed at which a computer system works. Or
rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was rumored
to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.

[Tom Sherman]

Mark C. wrote:
> ...
> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...

I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 31, 5:50*pm, "Mark C." <krucam...@verizonRMV.net> wrote:

> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!
>
> Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
> that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
> distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
> sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
> be.

If you would like to see such things made illegal, then start a
separate thread. This thread is focused on cellphone distractions.

[Bill Z.]

Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes:
> >
> > Talking on a phone, hands free or not, is a channel which sucks your
> > attention away from driving.
>
> This is pretty much my opinion also. In a couple years (decades) we'll
> end up just banning talking on the phone while driving. Just like we
> did with drinking and driving.

In a couple of decades, we'll probably have deployed collision-
avoidance electronics in cars that will compensate for the level
of driver distraction related to cell-phone use.

Just something like cruise control systems that use low-powered
radar to keep a safe distance from a car ahead would make a
difference.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[judith]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:49:13 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.misc Mark C. <krucamRMV@verizonrmv.net> wrote:
>>
>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!
>>
>> Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
>> that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
>> distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
>> sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
>> be.
>
>Most of these are momentary distractions (with the exception of the
>spaztastic child possibly). And even though they are momentary, you
>hear all the time about people crashing their car while doing precisely
>these things. People are on the cell phone for hours at a time (in many
>cases). That's not a momentary distraction, that's a completely
>avoidable long-term disability to your driving.


spaztastic?

Good to see that the school holidays have started - or are you a
merkin?




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc judith <judithsmith@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> > wrote:
>
>>Most of these are momentary distractions (with the exception of the
>>spaztastic child possibly). And even though they are momentary, you
>>hear all the time about people crashing their car while doing precisely
>>these things. People are on the cell phone for hours at a time (in many
>>cases). That's not a momentary distraction, that's a completely
>>avoidable long-term disability to your driving.
>
> spaztastic?
>
> Good to see that the school holidays have started - or are you a
> merkin?

Well, it's been almost a decade since I last interacted with academia
personally. I'd also like to point out that at no point have I ever
been a beard for anyone's progenitive organs.

But if you mean, am I doomed by my geographic location to butcher the
English language in the American fashion? Then the answer would be yes.

--
Dane Buson - nn07tp08@unixbigots.org
The wind doth taste so bitter sweet,
Like Jaspar wine and sugar,
It must have blown through someone's feet,
Like those of Caspar Weinberger.
-- P. Opus

[Tom Keats]

In article <g70fd0$lnc$8@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Mark C. wrote:
>> ...
>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>
> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.

You're a curmudgeon.

And that ain't exactly your most endearing trait.

I suspect the Dali Lama is a latent/supressed
curmudgeon too.

You need to regain/rediscover your patience.

So do I. A little.

I recommend an hobby. But maybe not watch repair.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 1, 10:05*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Mark C. wrote:
> > ...
> > And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> > backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>
> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

And I'm against breastfeeding babies while driving. Is that a problem
anywhere?

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <g70fd0$lnc$8@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Mark C. wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>
> You're a curmudgeon.
>
> And that ain't exactly your most endearing trait....
>
Hey, I love children. They are delicious.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Tom Keats]

In article <g71mj0$ru2$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <g70fd0$lnc$8@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>> Mark C. wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>>>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>>> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>>
>> You're a curmudgeon.
>>
>> And that ain't exactly your most endearing trait....
>>
> Hey, I love children. They are delicious.
>
Okay, Swifty.

Ya ogre, ya.

Go live with yourself.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <g71mj0$ru2$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> In article <g70fd0$lnc$8@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Mark C. wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>>>>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>>>> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>>> You're a curmudgeon.
>>>
>>> And that ain't exactly your most endearing trait....
>>>
>> Hey, I love children. They are delicious.
>>
> Okay, Swifty.
>
> Ya ogre, ya.
>
I prefer curmudgeon.

> Go live with yourself.
>
What ever happened to children should be seen but not heard?

What is grossly unfair is that is it perfectly legal for landlords and
condominium boards to discriminate against cats but not children in the
state in which I live. Cats do not bother anyone, while children scream,
cry, throw stuff and otherwise disturb the peace (and often sleep) of
adults.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Bill Z.]

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Jul 31, 5:50Â*pm, "Mark C." <krucam...@verizonRMV.net> wrote:
>
> > And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> > backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!
> >
> > Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
> > that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
> > distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
> > sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
> > be.
>
> If you would like to see such things made illegal, then start a
> separate thread. This thread is focused on cellphone distractions.

One of the differences between the two should be pointed out - the
length of time for each activity - you spend relatively little time
changing stations, and with preset buttons and a well-designed radio
(good ergonomics), you can change stations without taking your eyes
off the road. The time spent, however, is a tiny fraction of the
length of a typical phone call.

One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Keats]

In article <87r6964vhs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:

> One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
> is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
> difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

Unless one is dealing with a bunch of
dozy bastards who have to put their
reading glasses on, in order to answer
the phone, while asleep or otherwise
distracted at the wheel. And hurtling
a ton & a half of machinery down the street,
and hoping to not hit anything in the process.

Reading glasses: I put 'em on to see what I'm
doing, and take 'em off to see where I'm going.
It's a *****.

I hope you don't run anybody over.



--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Peter Grange]

On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:


>Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
>200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.

My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
there until she gets out again.

If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?

Pete

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Trackerway
"I totally agree that a federal law should be passed banning cell
phone use while driving. And cops should be allowed to pull over
anyone they see talking on a cell phone, it shouldn't be one of those
'secondary offenses' where they have to have another reason (i.e.
speeding) to pull you over."

I totally agree that they should be prosecuted, but there's another
dimension to it: THE SOCIAL DIMENSION. Few in society would justify
the "drunks" (though at one point or another many of us do it), but
cell phones junkies are often seen as a sign of "status." Actually
they almost go hand in hand with the SUV, meaning "I have money to
burn, and I do whatever the **** I want." :(

So when we see it them as "junkies" and not "success stories," we may
perhaps start seeing a tidal change. Of course, then enforcement would
take care of the real hardcore junkies.

[Bill Z.]

tkeats2005@hotmai.com (Tom Keats) writes:

> In article <87r6964vhs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
> > is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
> > difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
> > Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> > 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>
> Unless one is dealing with a bunch of dozy bastards who have to put
> their reading glasses on, in order to answer the phone, while asleep
> or otherwise distracted at the wheel. And hurtling a ton & a half
> of machinery down the street, and hoping to not hit anything in the
> process.

You really are clueless, aren't you. Are you at all capable of even
a semiserious discussion about anything?




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Baker_Beach@yahoo.com]

On Aug 2, 8:25*pm, tkeats2...@hotmai.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <87r6964vhs....@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> * * * * nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
> > is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
> > difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
> > Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> > 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>
> Unless one is dealing with a bunch *of
> dozy bastards who have to put their
> reading glasses on, in order to answer
> the phone, while asleep or otherwise
> distracted at the wheel. *And hurtling
> a ton & a half of machinery down the street,
> and hoping to not hit anything in the process.
>
> Reading glasses: I put 'em on to see what I'm
> doing, and take 'em off to see where I'm going.
> It's a *****.
>
> I hope you don't run anybody over.
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> I'm really at:
> tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Because I work the graveyard shift, I am at risk of being hit by a
sleepy driver with poor night vision.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Peter Grange" (clip) If we both get in the car we talk to each other,
which must be
> remarkably like talking on a mobile.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, it's not. When you're talking to someone on the phone, that that person
is not aware of your driving situation. You are aware of that fact, so you
are more likely to continue talking when you ought to be swerving, braking
or weighing the options in front of you. Let's say, for example, the car in
front of you suddenly starts to decelerate. If you're talking to your wife,
she's probably pressing on the floorboards with her feet, while you are
pressing on the brake. You do not have to yank your mind back to the car,
because you are both already there. If she, instead, is on the phone with
you, there will be a momentary rearrangement in your thought processes which
could make a difference in your safety.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 3, 1:51*pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> >200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>
> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>
> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
> there until she gets out again.
>
> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>
> Pete

That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...

I know in Germany commercials on TV are regulated to something like 12
min. an hour, but don't know in other civilized places. Interesting
subject, no?

[Tim Woodall]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:39:50 GMT,
Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> "Peter Grange" (clip) If we both get in the car we talk to each other,
> which must be
>> remarkably like talking on a mobile.(clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No, it's not. When you're talking to someone on the phone, that that person
> is not aware of your driving situation. You are aware of that fact, so you
> are more likely to continue talking when you ought to be swerving, braking
> or weighing the options in front of you. Let's say, for example, the car in
> front of you suddenly starts to decelerate. If you're talking to your wife,
> she's probably pressing on the floorboards with her feet, while you are
> pressing on the brake. You do not have to yank your mind back to the car,
> because you are both already there. If she, instead, is on the phone with
> you, there will be a momentary rearrangement in your thought processes which
> could make a difference in your safety.
>
Additionally, the audio quality is significantly degraded over a mobile
phone as compared to face to face talking. It's astonishing how good the
brain is at extracting a signal from the noise[1], but it's also surprising
how much attention the brain has to divert to doing that and how little
attention the brain leaves for doing everything else.

Tim.

[1] of course, the brain is also renouned for detecting a signal in
random noise.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

[Tom Sherman]

KingOfTheApes wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:05 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Mark C. wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
>>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
>> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
>> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
>
> And I'm against breastfeeding babies while driving. Is that a problem
> anywhere?

Well, I have seen adult men manipulating the breasts of adult women who
are driving (one of the advantages of being in the cab of a commercial
size truck).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[necromancer]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...


Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.

--
Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend indicates that it
drives sleepy on a routine basis

"The main purpose is to wake up dangerous psychos who
drive while sleepy."

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/j3hxa
Message ID: 7ose929f8h94moubrlac2kc4tq5q13tgl5@4ax.com

[Tom Sherman]

KingOfTheApes wrote:
> On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
>>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
>> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>>
>> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
>> there until she gets out again.
>>
>> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
>> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
>> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>>
>> Pete
>
> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
> ...
Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 11:57*am, necromancer
<55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> >COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> >California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> >or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> >bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>
> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>

Ah, at least some people are relieved from the loud annoying
commercials!

Then we should do a campaign to get rid of commercial radio! ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 2:05 pm, "Rick Cooper" <nos...@telus.com> wrote:
> "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in > "I totally agree
> that a federal law should be passed banning cell phone use while driving.
> And cops should be allowed to pull over anyone they see talking on a cell
> phone, it shouldn't be one of those> 'secondary offenses' where they have to have another reason (i.e.
>
> speeding) to pull you over."
>
> I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving
> recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but
> many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking. It depends on
> the degree of inebriation and each driver is different. If able, I would
> eliminate all drunk driver laws and even allow drinking behind the wheel.
> Reckless operation is the bane.

Man, hard to convince the people that drunks that drive are OK, even
when most of the same people drink and drive. You know, HYPOCRISY IS
THE LAW OF THE LAND. Just look at other "evils" like drugs and
prostitution... ;)

But even in "civilized places" like Germany, you won't get away with
that. And cell phone junkies won't get away with it either, which
makes their laws fair and cohesive.

So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
or ride a bike.

Have you ever tried to ride a bicycle while intoxicated? It feels
funny, huh?

[Scott in SoCal]

In message <jk9e94pd44pqkk6m6rf02snr1h8rf7emft@4ax.com>, necromancer
<55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
><comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>>COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>>California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>>or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>>bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>
>Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.

I hate to break this news to ya, but satellite radio is FULL of
commercials.
--
Q: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one?
A: The traffic snake's ******* at the *front* end.

[Peter Cole]

necromancer wrote:

> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.

I don't think you can buy CD changers any more, which is good since CD's
will soon follow.

And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3 players.

[Shawn]

KingOfTheApes wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:57 am, necromancer
> <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>
>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>>> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>>> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>>> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>>> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>>
>
> Ah, at least some people are relieved from the loud annoying
> commercials!
>
> Then we should do a campaign to get rid of commercial radio! ;)

I believe Clear Channel is taking care of that for us. :-P


Shawn

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de8946fb@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>or ride a bike.

Riding a bike drunk is DUI. Boarding a bus drunk is public
intoxication.

Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 12:33*pm, Shawn <f...@eleven.net> wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 11:57 am, necromancer
> > <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> >>> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> >>> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> >>> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> >>> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
> >> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
> >> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
> > Ah, at least some people are relieved from the loud annoying
> > commercials!
>
> > Then we should do a campaign to get rid of commercial radio! ;)
>
> I believe Clear Channel is taking care of that for us. *:-P
>
> Shawn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good, and what's the catch?

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
> >or ride a bike.
>
> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
> intoxication.
>
> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
> --
> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> * result in a fully-depreciated one.

Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
be good for society if you get killed. ;)

But when you have two or more tons of steels behind the wheel, you
become PUBLIC ENEMY.

And by the way, this is not a crusade against alcohol, since I reserve
myself the right to ride a bicycle in the rare occasion that I decide
to drink and ride. The real purpose of this campaign is to create
OPTIONS (buses, bikes) for the drunks and everybody else.

Cheers!

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de8946fb@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>>or ride a bike.
>
> Riding a bike drunk is DUI.

Not necessarily, this varies from state to state.

--
Dane Buson - nn07tp08@unixbigots.org
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand
that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand."
-Mark Twain

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>> >or ride a bike.
>>
>> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
>> intoxication.
>>
>> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
>> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
>> --
>> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
> Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
> RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
> under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
> be good for society if you get killed. ;)

Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <013b9992-889a-42cd-8706-1b415b9a507e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 4, 2:22=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. =A0Boarding a bus drunk is public
>> intoxication.
>>
>> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
>> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
>
>Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI.

Yes, in many if not most states, it is.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Navigator]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:10:07 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>> >or ride a bike.
>>
>> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
>> intoxication.
>>
>> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
>> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
>> --
>> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
>Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
>RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
>under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
>be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>
>But when you have two or more tons of steels behind the wheel, you
>become PUBLIC ENEMY.
>
>And by the way, this is not a crusade against alcohol, since I reserve
>myself the right to ride a bicycle in the rare occasion that I decide
>to drink and ride. The real purpose of this campaign is to create
>OPTIONS (buses, bikes) for the drunks and everybody else.
>
>Cheers!
If you are riding your bike out on the street drunk, and are weaving
around, you are endaging other lives as well. It's likely cars will
swerve to avoid you swerving, resulting in a possibilty of them losing
control, causing them to hit others or swerve, just as if you were
driving a car erratically.

So stay off the road if you are drunk, even if it's just riding a
bicycle.

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <pOCdndRVW7XQ5wrVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
>news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
>motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
>drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
>anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
>when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
>with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
>Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.

And they get convictions in all those cases, so it's not just
overzealous cops; it's overzealous lawmakers.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 5:53*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
> >> >or ride a bike.
>
> >> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
> >> intoxication.
>
> >> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
> >> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
> >> --
> >> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> >> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
> > Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
> > RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
> > under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
> > be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>
> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gee, why don't they close the damn liquor stores, and go back to the
good ol' times of Capone?

He was tough competition for the police, huh?

[Tom Sherman]

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> wrote:
>>> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>>>> or ride a bike.
>>> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. Boarding a bus drunk is public
>>> intoxication.
>>>
>>> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
>>> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
>>> --
>>> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>>> result in a fully-depreciated one.
>> Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
>> RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
>> under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
>> be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>
> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>
I have known people in Illinois (Brent P's state) to get a DUI while
sleeping in the back of van because they had the engine on for heat.

There are way too many laws restricting harmless behavior, and way too
many overly aggressive police who get off on being authoritarian.

For all the talk of the US being the "Land of the Free", the people sure
act like sheep.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-05, Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article <pOCdndRVW7XQ5wrVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
>>news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
>>motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
>>drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
>>anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
>>when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
>>with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
>>Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>
> And they get convictions in all those cases, so it's not just
> overzealous cops; it's overzealous lawmakers.

Cops work for government. They enforce government edicts. They stopped
working for the people a long time ago. That's why it's called 'law
enforcement' now.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 9:24*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-08-05, Matthew T. Russotto <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <pOCdndRVW7XQ5wrVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdn...@comcast.com>,
> > Brent P *<tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> >>news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> >>motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> >>drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> >>anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> >>when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> >>with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> >>Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>
> > And they get convictions in all those cases, so it's not just
> > overzealous cops; it's overzealous lawmakers.
>
> Cops work for government. They enforce government edicts. They stopped
> working for the people a long time ago. That's why it's called 'law
> enforcement' now.

Law enforcement? It must be the Law of the Jungle in which they are
the Collection Agents...

[Tom Sherman]

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-08-05, Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> In article <pOCdndRVW7XQ5wrVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
>>> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
>>> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
>>> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
>>> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
>>> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
>>> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
>>> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>> And they get convictions in all those cases, so it's not just
>> overzealous cops; it's overzealous lawmakers.
>
> Cops work for government. They enforce government edicts. They stopped
> working for the people a long time ago. That's why it's called 'law
> enforcement' now.
>
The politicians (with a few honorable exceptions) stopped working for
the people a long time ago.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 9:53 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 10:05 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Mark C. wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
> >>> backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
> >> I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
>
> >> --
> >> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> >> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> >> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
>
> > And I'm against breastfeeding babies while driving. Is that a problem
> > anywhere?
>
> Well, I have seen adult men manipulating the breasts of adult women who
> are driving (one of the advantages of being in the cab of a commercial
> size truck).
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So long as they are not sucking, it should be OK.

You can't possibly suck and drive.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 9:55 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> >>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
> >> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
> >> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>
> >> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
> >> there until she gets out again.
>
> >> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
> >> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
> >> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>
> >> Pete
>
> > That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> > COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> > California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> > or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> > bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
> > ...
>
> Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
> which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text ->

I wished they were coded in ultrasound, like elephants' noise.

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-05, KingOfTheApes <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:53*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
>> >> >or ride a bike.
>>
>> >> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
>> >> intoxication.
>>
>> >> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
>> >> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
>> >> --
>> >> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>> >> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>>
>> > Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
>> > RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
>> > under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
>> > be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>>
>> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
>> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
>> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
>> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
>> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
>> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
>> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
>> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Gee, why don't they close the damn liquor stores, and go back to the
> good ol' times of Capone?
>
> He was tough competition for the police, huh?

you're getting it.

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 10:01 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

> > Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> > news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> > motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> > drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> > anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> > when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> > with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> > Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>
> I have known people in Illinois (Brent P's state) to get a DUI while
> sleeping in the back of van because they had the engine on for heat.
>
> There are way too many laws restricting harmless behavior, and way too
> many overly aggressive police who get off on being authoritarian.
>
> For all the talk of the US being the "Land of the Free", the people sure
> act like sheep.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”-


I think the sheep are basically free, but have been trained from birth
to follow the leader.

It's like Orwell used to say...

"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really
well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no
whip" -George Orwell

[N8N]

On Aug 4, 9:55*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> >>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
> >> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
> >> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>
> >> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
> >> there until she gets out again.
>
> >> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
> >> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
> >> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>
> >> Pete
>
> > That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> > COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> > California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> > or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> > bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
> > ...
>
> Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
> which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.


i'm not sure if it is "subjective" or not - some commercials really do
seem significantly louder than the regular broadcast program.

What I really hate is when I'm tooling along paying attention to my
driving and not so much to whatever's on the radio, and there's a
commercial for a DUI lawyer or something complete with a realistic
police siren sound... it doesn't help that I'm often listening to NPR
so I don't get as much practice mentally filtering out commercials as
some...

nate

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-05, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-08-05, Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> In article <pOCdndRVW7XQ5wrVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
>>>> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
>>>> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
>>>> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
>>>> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
>>>> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
>>>> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
>>>> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.
>>> And they get convictions in all those cases, so it's not just
>>> overzealous cops; it's overzealous lawmakers.
>>
>> Cops work for government. They enforce government edicts. They stopped
>> working for the people a long time ago. That's why it's called 'law
>> enforcement' now.
>>
> The politicians (with a few honorable exceptions) stopped working for
> the people a long time ago.

Yep.

[Tom Sherman]

KingOfTheApes wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:55 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> KingOfTheApes wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
>>>>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>>>> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
>>>> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>>>> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
>>>> there until she gets out again.
>>>> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
>>>> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
>>>> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>>>> Pete
>>> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>>> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>>> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>>> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>>> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>>> ...
>> Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
>> which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.
>>
- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text ->
>
> I wished they were coded in ultrasound, like elephants' noise.

I think you mean infrasound.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 10:12*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 9:55 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> >>> On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
> >>>>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
> >>>> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
> >>>> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
> >>>> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
> >>>> there until she gets out again.
> >>>> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
> >>>> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
> >>>> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
> >>>> Pete
> >>> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> >>> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> >>> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> >>> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> >>> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
> >>> ...
> >> Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
> >> which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text ->
>
> > I wished they were coded in ultrasound, like elephants' noise.
>
> I think you mean infrasound.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever it is. The case is that we don't hear it. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 4, 10:59*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On 2008-08-05, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 5:53*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
> >> >> >or ride a bike.
>
> >> >> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
> >> >> intoxication.
>
> >> >> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
> >> >> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
> >> >> --
> >> >> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> >> >> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
> >> > Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
> >> > RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
> >> > under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
> >> > be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>
> >> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> >> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> >> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> >> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> >> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> >> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> >> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> >> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Gee, why don't they close the damn liquor stores, and go back to the
> > good ol' times of Capone?
>
> > He was tough competition for the police, huh?
>
> you're getting it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Competition is NOT allowed in the jungle. He was nailed for "tax
evasion," right?

You always have to give the big lion his cut. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 5, 9:59*am, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:59*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-05, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 5:53*pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2008-08-04, KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Aug 4, 2:22*pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >> >> KingOfTheApes *<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus
> > >> >> >or ride a bike.
>
> > >> >> Riding a bike drunk is DUI. *Boarding a bus drunk is public
> > >> >> intoxication.
>
> > >> >> Stop making the alternatives illegal too in the crusade against
> > >> >> alcohol, and maybe you really can cut drinking and driving.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> * There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> > >> >> * result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
> > >> > Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be
> > >> > RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride
> > >> > under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even
> > >> > be good for society if you get killed. ;)
>
> > >> Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read
> > >> news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles,
> > >> motorized coolers, wheel chairs (yes, that's right the handicaped can't
> > >> drink outside their home at all without risking a DUI), practically
> > >> anything that moves human powered or not. Cops charge people with DUI
> > >> when they decide to sleep it off in their vehicle. Cops charge people
> > >> with DUI when they use on-star to call a cab. The list goes on and on.
> > >> Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Gee, why don't they close the damn liquor stores, and go back to the
> > > good ol' times of Capone?
>
> > > He was tough competition for the police, huh?
>
> > you're getting it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Competition is NOT allowed in the jungle. He was nailed for "tax
> evasion," right?
>
> You always have to give the big lion his cut. ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Talking about feeding the lion...

On Aug 5, 1:40 am, "Rick Cooper" <nos...@telus.com> wrote:
> "saddlebag" <saddle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:61ab5ca7-4701-4b8d-8885-Sucking money out of the pockets of
> people unfortunate enough to get popped for nothing more than having
> beer on their breath on a Friday night is downright tyranical.
>
> They feed off the people least likely to have money for fines. And they
> propagate a never ending cycle of suspended license drivers who have to get
> to work and drive under suspended license out of necessity, draining them
> even drier financially when they inevitably get pulled over again and again
> for driving under suspension and creating more revenue for the police state.
> The police state and penal system don't care because even if they don't reap
> the fine money, they can always incarcerate the violator to keep the prison
> industrial complex running at full steam for the CEOs who are making a
> fortune from the cheap prison labor and don't want to pay a living wage to
> regular Americans needing a job.

All you say makes sense. My advice to the fellows out there that must
drink and drive: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

[KingOfTheApes]

You may think this is a series of bad jokes, but hopefully they make
you think...

(I respond below)

Originally Posted by noisebeam
"Is it OK for drunk cyclists to run stop lights? After all some say it
is safer."

Al

It's OK if they make it alive to the other side. But some say it's
even better if they do NOT make it.

PS: I guess that's a cruel joke. I would only drink and ride in
protected areas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <jk9e94pd44pqkk6m6rf02snr1h8rf7e...@4ax.com>, necromancer
>
> <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> ><comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> >>COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> >>California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> >>or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> >>bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>
> >Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
> >the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
> I hate to break this news to ya, but satellite radio is FULL of
> commercials.
> --
> Q: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one?
> A: The traffic snake's ******* at the *front* end.

It's still better than terrestrial. I don't mind getting my talk
broken up with commercials every so often - I guess I'm used to it.
What kills me is commercials during music. Be it on a bike ride, in
the car, at home, wherever - having the groove of music broken by
commercials sucks. Sattellite, at least Sirus, manages to keep their
music commercial free. It's not perfect, but it's a wrokable tradeoff.

[necromancer]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:10:37 -0700, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In message <jk9e94pd44pqkk6m6rf02snr1h8rf7emft@4ax.com>, necromancer
><55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>><comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>>>COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>>>California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>>>or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>>>bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>>
>>Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>>the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
>I hate to break this news to ya, but satellite radio is FULL of
>commercials.

Really? Aside from the DJ getting diarrhea of the mouth from time to
time, I hadn't noticed any commercials. Then again, I don't listen to
the talk channels either (with the exception of some occasional Howard
Stern or Bubba The Love Sponge).
--
"Let's do it right. Act normal. Plan things out. Make no mistakes."
--Tony Soprano

[necromancer]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:59:04 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
wrote:

>necromancer wrote:
>
>> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
>I don't think you can buy CD changers any more,

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1149205463698&type=product

http://www.crutchfield.com/g_65500/Changers.html?tp=985

http://www.crutchfield.com/g_53100/CD-Players.html?tp=197

> which is good since CD's will soon follow.

They've been saying that about vinyl ever since the first casette tape
hit the market.

>And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3 players.

Not everyone.

--
"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..."
--George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas

[Tom Sherman]

Peter Cole wrote:
> necromancer wrote:
>
>> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
> I don't think you can buy CD changers any more, which is good since CD's
> will soon follow.
>
> And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3
> players.

Reduced bit rate formats are lousy. The 16-bit, 44.1 kHz PCM sampling
used for CD is barely acceptable.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Tom Keats]

In article <YUZlk.268$xv.172@trnddc02>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> writes:
> necromancer wrote:
>
>> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
> I don't think you can buy CD changers any more, which is good since CD's
> will soon follow.
>
> And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3 players.

(AM, terrestrial) radio is still the most timely news medium.
Great for traffic/weather updates.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom Sherman]

N8N aka Nate Nagel wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:55 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> KingOfTheApes wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
>>>>> 200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).
>>>> Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
>>>> radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.
>>>> My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
>>>> there until she gets out again.
>>>> If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
>>>> remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
>>>> distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?
>>>> Pete
>>> That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
>>> COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
>>> California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
>>> or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
>>> bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>>> ...
>> Many commercials are compressed to have less than 6 dB dynamic range,
>> which is why they are so subjectively loud and annoying.
>
>
> i'm not sure if it is "subjective" or not - some commercials really do
> seem significantly louder than the regular broadcast program.
>
The peak volume will not be louder with compression, but the average
volume will be much higher.

> What I really hate is when I'm tooling along paying attention to my
> driving and not so much to whatever's on the radio, and there's a
> commercial for a DUI lawyer or something complete with a realistic
> police siren sound... it doesn't help that I'm often listening to NPR
> so I don't get as much practice mentally filtering out commercials as
> some...
>
What I really hate is when people have a radio cranked up to listen to
music more loudly, and the commercials also come across at high volume.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[KingOfTheApes]

On Aug 5, 11:16*am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <jk9e94pd44pqkk6m6rf02snr1h8rf7e...@4ax.com>, necromancer
>
> > <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> > ><comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD
> > >>COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and
> > >>California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota
> > >>or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2
> > >>bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash...
>
> > >Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
> > >the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>
> > I hate to break this news to ya, but satellite radio is FULL of
> > commercials.
> > --
> > Q: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one?
> > A: The traffic snake's ******* at the *front* end.
>
> It's still better than terrestrial. *I don't mind getting my talk
> broken up with commercials every so often - I guess I'm used to it.
> What kills me is commercials during music. *Be it on a bike ride, in
> the car, at home, wherever - having the groove of music broken by
> commercials sucks. *Sattellite, at least Sirus, manages to keep their
> music commercial free. *It's not perfect, but it's a wrokable tradeoff.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here in Miami we finally have a commercial free classical music
station. It's a pretty common thing in Europe, but I feel very excited
that civilization is getting here. ;)

They advertise themselves as having no one screaming at you. If
Beethoven's Fifth high notes don't startle you, this is the thing.

[Peter Cole]

necromancer wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:59:04 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
> wrote:

>> I don't think you can buy CD changers any more,
>
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1149205463698&type=product

Wow, you're right, Best Buy does have one (1, out of 65), but not in the
store.


> They've been saying that about vinyl ever since the first casette tape
> hit the market.

No, they said it about vinyl when CD's came out. And they were right.

>
>> And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3 players.
>
> Not everyone.

OK, just most people.

[Peter Cole]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> necromancer wrote:
>>
>>> Two of the best inventions ever for dealing with terrestrial radio and
>>> the never ending commercial mix: satellite radio and CD changers.
>>
>> I don't think you can buy CD changers any more, which is good since
>> CD's will soon follow.
>>
>> And what's with radio? I thought everyone just plugged in their MP3
>> players.
>
> Reduced bit rate formats are lousy. The 16-bit, 44.1 kHz PCM sampling
> used for CD is barely acceptable.
>

You must drive a Bentley.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by ferd_miller
And BTW: what campaign? Are you organizing a "Critical Sloshed Mass"
to push the agenda that motorists should be aware of and make
accommodations for drunk cyclists?

PS: That actually sounds fairly amusing; I'd love to see a YouTube
video of that!

***

No, the point is that if they must drink and drive, they better ride
(taxi, bus or bike).

Your wish... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHYn1fJqXLc

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Bekologist
I suspect you can find some variation of "the drunken riders club" in
every major city.

***

It won't have as many members as the Hypocritical Club --those who
know that those who drink also drive and yet deny it.

How you think those millions of Americans who go to parties and clubs
every week make it home, the magic carpet?

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Pat
I just checked a web site on FL DUI laws. It was well peculiar. The
site stated that bicycles, golf carts, horses and farm machinery were
all considered to be vehicles. I believe that golf carts are not legal
vehicles. They can not be operated legally on the road. I don't know
about horses. I think tractors and such can operate on the roads.

I have read all of the bike specific laws in FL and there is no
attenuation of DUI under statute for bicycles.

On the other hand, people who lose their licenses for DUI in motorized
vehicles can ride bicycles and I think they can do so legally. No
drivers license is required for cycling in FL. In facts, I think
people with DUIs are sort of encouraged to use bikes as an alternate
form of transportation. I have heard of people who had multiple DUIs
in autos switching to bicycles and driving drunk all the time. Maybe
the police figure it is best just to tolerate them and let natural
selection take its course.

***

I think the people who put together the Florida laws (where I live)
must also have been drunk --or high.

I know politicians and lawyers attend a lot of parties.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Allister
"I think all mobile phones should be replaced with Bananaphones."

I think it deserves serious consideration...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWKV4uC9qpM

(Well at least they won't be as "deadly" serious as in a regular
phone)

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by wabbit
"i got squeezed over to the side of a road almost onto the sidewalk,
by a car that was drifting over...wouldn't you know it, the stupid
idiot was looking down at her iphone and texting, not even looking at
the road."

That calls for a banana (or middle finger).

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by genec

"Having been part of the cell phone industry for a number of years...
I hated the lack of courtesy that these things seem to have brought to
society... but then I would remember it was the user, not the cell
phone, that was the problem.

I still work in wireless, but not the cell phone industry."


They say the same things about guns and SUVs.

I don't know why they attract some dangerous people. Bikes though
appeal to many nice people.

[KingOfTheApes]

I guess everything is not normal out there...

In this other forum whenever I make comments to draw lessons from
accidents, I'm banned under the rules of the forum. Fine, I tell the
people to stop posting things about accidents and pretend like
"everything is normal"...


'I think this kind of "bad news" where there's death and mayhem should
be banned...

The reason is that then one starts drawing lessons from them and gets
carried away, and voila! you are banned.

Just pretend everything is nice and normal out there.'


And I get this reply...

No, it's not "Nice and Normal" out there. People are freaking idiots
and will kill you if you give them the chance.

More on the story....
DUI ? Suspended license ? Yeah, people are idiots.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/spri...lice_free.html

SUNRISE: 2 women arrested in crashes that killed 3 cyclists
Comments 1 | Recommend 0
August 7, 2008 - 7:47AM
The Gazette
Two women were arrested this week on suspicion of vehicular homicide
in separate crashes that killed three people.
Barbara Thomas, 64, is accused of killing two bicyclists Wednesday on
Colorado Springs' west side when her one-ton pickup drove into a group
of five cyclists, according to police. Thomas was traveling southbound
on S. 26th Street in her 1986 Ford F-350 when she attempted to turn
left onto Westend Avenue. She struck at least two of the bicyclists,
who were riding northbound on 26th Street. Thomas's arrest was also
based on a suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs, driving
with a restricted licenses, and making an improper left turn. Names of
the victims have not been released.

Motorcyclist killed
Tina Kelly, 33, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of killing a
motorcyclist Aug. 1 in southeast Colorado Springs after first lying to
police, police reported.
Andrew Allman, 25, of Colorado Springs, died at the scene near Airport
and Chelton roads when his motorcycle crashed into the back of a
Mercury compact car backing out of a driveway about midnight. A
passenger on the motorcycle, Amanda Diaz, 22, remains hospitalized in
serious condition with a head injury and fractured hip.
Kelly told police at the time of the accident that she was the
passenger in the Mercury and the driver, a man, had fled the scene.
Police later determined she was the alleged driver. In addition to
vehicular homicide, she was arrested o