Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run >> them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run >> them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
Instead, there are various situations where you must yield the right
of way. You only proceed when none of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in your path. No
matter how heedless or annoying they may be, you have no right to
hit them with your vehicle
or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be >> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.
On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:[...]
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.
Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.
I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I snip the ones I'm not involved in.
I do apologize for not giving notice, though.
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
criminal laws, not traffic laws...
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example, where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).
The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker, without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).
On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close, is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are positioned correctly in the red right return channel.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.
Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and after cell phone use came into existence.
I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.
It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.
Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.
That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal people). They can't comprehend math.
Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.
Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going up?
Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.
Why is that?
Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
They don't.
They never did.
There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.
Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:[...]
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.
Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.
When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.
I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
snip the ones I'm not involved in.
Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal
September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.
I do apologize for not giving notice, though.
No worries, just pay attention on the crosswalk when I'm approaching!
Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example, where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).
The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker, without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).
On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close, is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are positioned correctly in the red right return channel.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side,
even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.
Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and after cell phone use came into existence.
I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.
It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.
Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.
That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal people). They can't comprehend math.
Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.
Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going up?
Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.
Why is that?
Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
They don't.
They never did.
There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.
Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.
Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side,
Can you give me a cite for that? I've often wondered about the wait-requirement for the little old lady on the far side of the 6-lane street who will need 3 cycles to actually make it across the street.
even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the >> midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal >> to proceed.
I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he
suddenly broke into a sprint.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.
One thing I noticed -- the sudden decrease in peripheral perception (different from vision, I think) when I picked up the phone to answer
it. I did this once, when I first got a cellphone. Never again. I
rarely need to make/receive calls so ignoring or pulling over just isn't
a big deal.
W Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:53:51 -0000 (UTC), pothead napisal:
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
That's why the DOT enacted the high rear brake light (long ago).
Let's see if it worked to reduce rear-end collisions, shall we
(since no recent USA safety law has ever reduced fatalities to date
although seat belt laws did reduce length of hospital stay).
Are we safer 30 years after third brake light mandate? >https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2016/09/13/third-brake-light/90317854/
Their answers are equivocal, and they make use of the bogus insurance >statistics, where they don't take into account they cherry pick.
Let's look deeper. >https://www.motoradvices.com/how-many-brake-lights-are-required-by-law/
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?
On 3/17/24 1:44 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:[...]
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so). >> > The original list apparently was:
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.
Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.
When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.
No. The only readers will be those in the group that *I* am reading,
and those are the only ones I'm concerned with. It's sufficient to say "other groups snipped". If anyone is interested they can look at
previous postings.
I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one >> newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending >> far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I >> snip the ones I'm not involved in.
Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.
No idea, but I take TB's word for it. It doesn't make sense to me
either. Next time I'll try x-posting to all of them and quote the exact error message.
I had to look at the 'source' of your post, look up the last
message-ID in the 'References:' header and the lookup that message-id on <http://al.howardknight.net/>. For *me*, that's not too hard, but many -
and probably even most - people don't know how to do that.
The EU requires the top brake light. Most of the planet uses EU safety and emissions regs
(ours are unique to the US) and Europeans sell a lot of cars in Asia, Africa and South
America.
On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
A driver can have the right of way.
As I recall it, US diesel emissions rules were (are?) quite a bit
tighter than EU rules.
At least it was so about 5 years ago. This
stems from California rules which are usually US wide pretty quick (due
to manufacturing costs).
Then of course you have VW/Audi's "compliance" that cost them criminal indictments and billions in fines...
W Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:53:51 -0000 (UTC), pothead napisal:
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance
you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of them are rear
end accidents.
That's why the DOT enacted the high rear brake light (long ago).
Let's see if it worked to reduce rear-end collisions, shall we
(since no recent USA safety law has ever reduced fatalities to date
although seat belt laws did reduce length of hospital stay).
Are we safer 30 years after third brake light mandate? https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2016/09/13/third-brake-light/90317854/
Their answers are equivocal, and they make use of the bogus insurance statistics, where they don't take into account they cherry pick.
Let's look deeper. https://www.motoradvices.com/how-many-brake-lights-are-required-by-law/
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?
I doubt if a high brake light is going to make a damn bit of difference
to someone engrossed in a cellphone chat.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:26:07 -0700, AJL wrote:
On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
A driver can have the right of way.
I wonder about your source for Arizona law.
When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are
all just trying to keep things simple and readable.
The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
intersection:
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
another vehicle.
On this Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:31:48 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
As I recall it, US diesel emissions rules were (are?) quite a bit
tighter than EU rules.
Does the EU have rules for every car requiring the tire low pressure indicator?
At least it was so about 5 years ago. This stems from California
rules which are usually US wide pretty quick (due to manufacturing
costs).
Yes. California is bigger than many European countries in size,
Then of course you have VW/Audi's "compliance" that cost them criminal
indictments and billions in fines...
I think those execs got away scott free in Germany but if they travel to
the USA (which they won't), they will be arrested and eventually jailed.
It was a school in (I think) Virginia (or North Carolina?) that caught
them red handed, but it was the California Air Resource Board that investigated
and assessed the initial fines.
Apparently Germany didn't care even though stockholders were hurt bad.
Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving, >without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing >accidents.
On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
accidents.
Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included. They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at their passenger while talking...
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving, without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing accidents.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.
Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
Yes :-D
It is also forbidden to handle the GPS. I wonder why they don't prohibit touch controls, but at least they get a worse security score in the
tests. Some brands are reverting to actual knobs.
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included. >> They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...
Or more things like kissing+. At least on the movies. :-p
On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving, >>without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing >>accidents.
Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...
On 3/20/24 8:33 AM, AJL wrote:
On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door.
I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works
entirely too well.
On 2024-03-20 20:13, The Real Bev wrote:Nope. Anything at all.
I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door.
+2
I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works >> entirely too well.
It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.
Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.
It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.
Nope. Anything at all.
The Real Bev wrote:
It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.
Nope. Anything at all.
In Myers-Briggs terms, maybe you're likely a strong "J" since you appear to make rigid rules for yourself that you expect others to follow as you do.
If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out. https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality
But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.
If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out.
https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality
I tried to read this stuff decades ago and found it hopelessly useless.
But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.
No idea what that is. If you seriously want me and everyone else to
know, spit it out.
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:14:35 +0100 :
Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.
Doesn't matter. It's all been said before since we've discussed this in the past in gory detail, where you don't remember anything that was said then.
The fact remains, everyone thinks that cellphones must raise the accident rate simply because they're an added distraction, and they are an added distraction - but there is no reliable evidence that they have any effect whatsoever on the accident rate in reliably reported USA Census Bureau Statistics.
Furthermore, the fact remains everyone thinks making laws to make people do safe things would lower the accident rate, but again, teh reliable
scientific evidence shows thta also is not the case.
The laws have no first order effects whatsoever on safety but they do have
a minor but statistically valid second-order effect on length of hospital stay.
This was covered on March 16, 2016 on this newsgroup, and again in even
more gory detail on July 6, 2020 on this very newsgroup, Carlos.
Morons (without a shred of evidence) disputed it then.
Those same morons (with no evidence) dispute it now.
Morons will always be morons, but the facts remain true.
The main reason cellphones have no effect on the accident rate is likely
two fold, one of which is there are hundreds of distractions. Adding one is like adding another hair to your head. It changes nothing in statistics.
In addition, cellphones prevent accidents, so they have a cancelling effect on the accident rate because they may prevent as many as they cause.
It's not clear why cellphones have no effect whatsoever on the accident
rate, but what's eminently clear in the reliable records is there is no change in the downward trend of accident rates in the USA for decades.
Just like the first post-Covid should have been a superspreader event if
all the morons were correct (and it wasn't), the facts show that cellphones do not change the accident rate (neither up, nor down) in effect.
As with the Fermi Paradox, if you feel otherwise, you have to answer this:
Q: Where are the accidents?
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places
Maybe even prove how safe it is.
Maybe even prove how safe it is.
Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>
On 2024-03-17 22:12, Andrew wrote:
Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron. (see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving, without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing accidents.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.
On 2024-03-20 18:57, Andrew wrote:
Notice that by following up to groups with "politic" in the name, my
filters automatically kill the subthread. Thus I am not reading or commenting on what you said.
Removing:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Hank Rogers wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:54:32 -0500 :
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places
Plenty of things are illegal, where in California, it's now illegal to NOT compost your food waste, but what does it mean to be illegal to you anyway?
New Law Gives California Green Light to Fine Residents
Who Don't Recycle Food Waste https://californiainsider.com/california-news/new-law-gives-california-green-light-to-fine-residents-who-dont-recycle-food-waste-5579378
Maybe even prove how safe it is.
Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>
On 3/20/24 8:47 PM, Andrew wrote:
Hank Rogers wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:54:32 -0500 :
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places
Plenty of things are illegal, where in California, it's now illegal to NOT >> compost your food waste, but what does it mean to be illegal to you anyway? >>
New Law Gives California Green Light to Fine Residents
Who Don't Recycle Food Waste
https://californiainsider.com/california-news/new-law-gives-california-green-light-to-fine-residents-who-dont-recycle-food-waste-5579378
Maybe even prove how safe it is.
Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>
FWIW. Here we're expected to put our food waste in plastic bags, tie
them closed, and deposit the little bags on top of our yard waste in
the yard waste container. There was much discussion about the nature
of these plastic bags and whether or not we were required to buy
compostable plastic bags.
The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.
I think unicorn poop may be involved, but I have no actual cite for
that. I can't imagine that the little bags aren't completely torn up
by rolling around in a truck full of twigs, logs, etc. but what do I
know?
I'm sure that this works as well as plastic-recycling, aren't you?
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some >news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
FWIW. Here we're expected to put our food waste in plastic bags, tie
them closed, and deposit the little bags on top of our yard waste in the yard waste container. There was much discussion about the nature of
these plastic bags and whether or not we were required to buy
compostable plastic bags.
The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.
I think unicorn poop may be involved, but I have no actual cite for
that. I can't imagine that the little bags aren't completely torn up by rolling around in a truck full of twigs, logs, etc. but what do I know?
I'm sure that this works as well as plastic-recycling, aren't you?
In our country (NL) there are similar laws and we *know* that use of
mobile phones causes accidents, including with severe injury and death
(like 4 people in a (other) car), because we keep detailed stats on circumstances, cause, etc.
'Andrew' seems to have some problems with statistics, because the
accident rate not going up (BTW, it *does* go up in our country) doesn't
mean that use of mobile phones doesn't cause accidents (to anyone with a somewhat functioning brain, it's blatantly obvious that it does). *Why*
he can't draw (t)his erronous conclusion, has been explained to him all
the previous times his silly claim came up. Some people learn, others
don't.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.
When 'Andrew' starts insulting, everyone knows he has no case, but
can't handle/admit that fact.
And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc., etc.?
In message <c1d00jh2v66od37mh993eng0hk52h9236f@4ax.com>
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?
Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?
Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.
On 3/23/2024 11:14 PM, P. Coonan wrote:
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.
(non-phone groups snipped)
On 3/24/24 1:46 PM, David Higton wrote:
In message <c1d00jh2v66od37mh993eng0hk52h9236f@4ax.com>
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engineWell, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc., >>> etc.?
Adjustments that need to be made while driving shouldn't require
taking your eyes off the road. Period. I liked driving the Tesla for
10 minutes, but having to actually READ stuff (requiring reading
glasses) while driving is a recipe for disaster.
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:57:52 -0400, Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:14 PM, P. Coonan wrote:
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.
That's so but the thought and decision processes continue as a distraction. Over time and
with improved ai, you can do things like say, "Alexa, this sure is a boring drive. Spice
it up for us." At which point Alexa will steer it into oncoming traffic. ;-)
Swill
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
Adjustments that need to be made while driving shouldn't require
taking your eyes off the road. Period. I liked driving the Tesla
for 10 minutes, but having to actually READ stuff (requiring
reading glasses) while driving is a recipe for disaster.
What about the speedometer?
On 3/25/2024 6:23 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:57:52 -0400, Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote: >>
On 3/23/2024 11:14 PM, P. Coonan wrote:
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be >>>>>> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just >>>>>> run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a >>>> lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to >>>> make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.
That's so but the thought and decision processes continue as a distraction. Over time and
with improved ai, you can do things like say, "Alexa, this sure is a boring drive. Spice
it up for us." At which point Alexa will steer it into oncoming traffic. ;-)
Swill
Alexa not involved. Built into Tesla software and does not control
steering or speed or stupidity.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:14:26 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
I agree. While it is handy to have such detailed configurations
possible, what if the
driver gets distracted trying to navigate multiple menus while driving?
And who really
needs six transmission performance choices, four engine power profiles, steering input
delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc., etc.?
Swill
On 2024-03-24 14:11:59 +0000, Governor Swill said:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:14:26 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2024, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me:
On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.
Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.
I agree. While it is handy to have such detailed configurations
possible, what if the
driver gets distracted trying to navigate multiple menus while driving?
And who really
needs six transmission performance choices, four engine power profiles,
steering input
delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc., etc.?
Swill
The more feature-itis a car has the more they figure they can make
people shell out an arm and a leg for a car these days.
In message <c1d00jh2v66od37mh993eng0hk52h9236f@4ax.com>
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four
engine power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings,
etc.,, etc., etc.?
Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
Thuma, 2024-03-16 20:30:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
You completely misunderstand the meaning of "right-of-way". It does
*not* mean "you can driver under any circumstance, no matter what happens"!
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
And then get prosecuted for reckless driving.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
What to protect them from? From their lazyness not to keep an eye on the street where they drive?
Arno Welzel wrote:
Thuma, 2024-03-16 20:30:
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
You completely misunderstand the meaning of "right-of-way". It does
*not* mean "you can driver under any circumstance, no matter what
happens"!
Details vary by jurisdiction. Where I live nobody has the right to
hit people or vehicles regardless of who has right of way.
Everybody is expected to yield to emergency vehicles with sirens
and lights, it's illegal not to, but even these cannot go through
red lights and stop signs until they have verified all cross
traffic has yielded.
And pedestrians have right of way over everyone else.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
And then get prosecuted for reckless driving.
We do suffer a rash of childre3n in adult bodies.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
What to protect them from? From their lazyness not to keep an eye on
the street where they drive?
Doofi are allowed to move here and attempt to amend laws with
initiatives.
And pedestrians have right of way over everyone else.
Where you live
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 912 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 170:55:00 |
| Calls: | 12,139 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,514 |
| Messages: | 2,231,246 |