Awful incident in Porter Square yesterday
Dave Stallard
looking out into the parking lot, when a SUV came smashing through the
wall, shattering the window and taking the counter with it. I recieved
only minor injuries, but a woman was seriously injured and had to be
taken to the hospital.
I can't find reports of this incident in the online editions of either
the Globe or the Herald. Has anyone seen anything in the media on it,
and does anyone know the status of the woman who was hospitalized?
Dave
Dick Margulis
If a tree falls in the forest and The New York Times isn't there to
report it, can it really be said to have fallen? I suspect accidents
such as you describe make it onto the news when a camera crew can be
dispatched and not otherwise. With respect to the injured woman, a
police report on the accident should identify her. Whether that will
help you obtain information about her condition, though, I won't
speculate. Some hospitals don't give out condition reports except to
relatives on a list, especially for patients who are not "public figures."
Don Saklad
Ron Newman
where there are three recent posts on the subject.
Please post your own experience there as well.
Ron Newman
Don Saklad <dsa...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22porter+square+books%22
Click on "Sorted by date" to make sure you get the most current stuff.
Also check Technorati, which often does a better job than Google of
indexing blogs:
http://www.technorati.com/search/%22porter%20square%20books%22
The mainstream media really fell down on this one, compared to the local
bloggers and photo-bloggers.
Dave Stallard
Will do.
I was seated at the rightmost chair of the counter along the wall,
looking out the window. The blinds were partially drawn, so I couldn't
see everything. I saw a pole on the sidewalk folding down, almost as
if it were in slow motion. I thought, oh, some idiot knocked the pole
over. Before I had time to complete that thought, the SUV came surging
through, shattering the glass and smashing the wall. It seemed like it
was accelerating; I thought I heard the engine gunning. I thought, "Oh
my God, this is just like what you read about in the newspapers; are we
all going to be killed?". Everything was being pushed backward, the
counter, everything. I fell, or jumped back, I don't which. The SUV
came to rest, some feet away from me to my left, and my first thought
was, "My God, I dodged the bullet again". (I was in that ski bus
rollover accident in Vermont four years ago, but in which a man was
almost killed and was left permanently brain damaged, so it was bit of
deja vu, unfortunately)
I was unscathed, except for some minor glass cuts on my left hand and
wrist. I heard a woman wailing in the wreckage. I thought she was
pinned or something, being crushed by the SUV. I jumped out through the
now-shattered window and banged on the driver-side window of the SUV,
yelling "Back up! Back up!". He (actually I guess it was a she in
large parka, or so I'm told) didn't respond. People started yelling to
call 911, and I started yelling that too, at everyone I saw.
Eventually, the driver did back up, almost hitting somebody behind the
vehicle. I went back inside, and saw people tending to the woman,
trying to speak soothingly to her. She was lying on the ground next to
the display case.
Eventually, after what seemed too long, frankly, but I couldn't say for
sure, the cops, fireman, and EMTs came. It took them a long time, but
they got the woman out. She was conscious as she was they were
wheeling her out, I know, because they were asking her where it hurt the
most. My hand was bleeding a bit, and I thought my finger might have
been broken, but that was all the injuries on me that I could find (you
always want to check, because shock and adrenaline can mask these
things). The cops had all the witnesses line up, and I gave them my
statement. My jacket was still in the wreckage, and I was shivering a
bit. They had me go over to the firemen to check me out. I said I
didn't need to be transported, and they had be sign a release to that
effect. Some more cops helped me find my jacket. Nice guys.
I went home, and had a rather psychologically disturbed day, but am OK now.
Dave
Dave Stallard
I tried to post in this, but it won't let me w/o becoming a member,
apparently.
Dave
Ron Newman
Dave Stallard <stal...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > See http://davis-square.livejournal.com/ ,
> > where there are three recent posts on the subject.
> > Please post your own experience there as well.
> I tried to post in this, but it won't let me w/o becoming a member,
> apparently.
Becoming a LiveJournal member is easy and free. Please do so and post
your story there.
Howard S Shubs
Dick Margulis <marg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Some hospitals don't give out condition reports except to relatives
> on a list, especially for patients who are not "public figures."
I'd expect that to be *all* hospitals. It's a law here in the US.
--
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams.
from "Ode", Arthur O'Shaughnessy
Dick Margulis
> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> writes:
>
>
>>In article <11uum7e...@news.supernews.com>,
>> Dick Margulis <marg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some hospitals don't give out condition reports except to relatives
>>>on a list, especially for patients who are not "public figures."
>>
>>I'd expect that to be *all* hospitals. It's a law here in the US.
>>
>
>
>
> Is there a difference between these questions:
>
> a) What is the condition of Mary Smith?
> b) What is the condition of the woman (unknown identity) who
> was injured in the Porter Square crash?
>
Well, there's no logical distinction, but there's certainly a pragmatic
distinction. If you call a hospital asking for the condition of Mary
Smith, the hospital can ascertain (a) if Mary Smith is a patient there
ad (b) if you're authorized to know the answer. Based on that
information they can then either answer or not answer based on. If you
call a hospital and ask for the condition of the woman who was injured
in the Porter Square crash, the hospital will have no idea whom you are
inquiring about and will likely hang up on you.
Jerry Wolf
medium-sized caption about the event, top of page B4.
Dave Stallard
> Dave Stallard wrote:
>> I was sitting at the counter at Zing in Porter Square Books yesterday,
>> looking out into the parking lot, when a SUV came smashing through the
>> wall, shattering the window and taking the counter with it. I
>> recieved only minor injuries, but a woman was seriously injured and
>> had to be taken to the hospital.
>>
>> I can't find reports of this incident in the online editions of either
>> the Globe or the Herald. Has anyone seen anything in the media on
>> it, and does anyone know the status of the woman who was hospitalized?
There's an article on it in the Cambridge Chronicle:
http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=431310
Quote:
" The driver, Joan Puccino, 70, of Somerville, was cited for failing to
use caution when parking and negligent operation, according to police
spokesman Frank Pasquarello. She was apparently parking her white Chevy
Suburban in a handicapped spot in front of the store when her foot got
stuck on the accelerator just before noon on Saturday. "
Does anyone know if "cited" could mean a criminal charge? Or is it
just like a traffic ticket? Is she going to get off scot-free?
Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and handicapped, and having
difficulties with things like brakes and gas pedals, did you ever think
that maybe you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy vehicle that could
crash through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??
And if you're NOT handicapped, WTF were you trying to park in a
handicapped space??
And how DOES your foot get "stuck" on an accelerator pedal, anyway?
So many questions. I'm still hoping to see this woman answer them in
court.
Dave
budgie
> " The driver, Joan Puccino, 70, of Somerville, was cited for failing to
Bingo. When this incident was initially posted, my first thought was
"how old was the driver?"
> And how DOES your foot get "stuck" on an accelerator pedal, anyway?
It's the second most popular excuse, right behind "the brakes
malfunctioned."
> So many questions. I'm still hoping to see this woman answer them in
> court.
You must be new here ...
Ron (only slightly less cynical than this post would indicate)
David Chesler
> Does anyone know if "cited" could mean a criminal charge? Or is it
> just like a traffic ticket? Is she going to get off scot-free?
I'd think citation means a traffic ticket, which is usually not
criminal except for drunk driving or willful recklessness. Criminals
are charged, indicted, and arraigned.
> Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and handicapped, and having
> difficulties with things like brakes and gas pedals, did you ever think
> that maybe you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy vehicle that could
> crash through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??
>
> And if you're NOT handicapped, WTF were you trying to park in a
> handicapped space??
How does an inability to walk 200 yards without getting winded
affect ability to drive? (Other instant qualifications for
a handicapped plate or placard include loss of an upper or
lower limb. The late Enrico Caruso who blamed his prosthesis
for the Stoneham accident, but I've seen a one-armed individual
driving. The form for applying for a plate or placard needs
the doctor to certify not only to the handicap, but also to
the fact that the handicap does not prohibit the safe operation
of a car.
I am not legally handicapped, but I regularly and legally park
in handicapped spaces, when I'm driving around an individual who
has just that limited lung function.
Interestingly, after you first posted this and noted the lack
of coverage, the lead story on the TV news was a photo of a similar
incident in Weymouth. See
http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=429296
In that case the [P]"olice are charging [88-year-old Lillian] Banks
with driving to endanger and are requesting a revocation of her
driver's license by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
"'We have found her to be an immediate safety threat,' [Lt.
George] Greenwood said. 'She will lose her license to drive.'"
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
Dave Stallard
> I'd think citation means a traffic ticket, which is usually not
> criminal except for drunk driving or willful recklessness. Criminals
> are charged, indicted, and arraigned.
I'm afraid you're right.
> How does an inability to walk 200 yards without getting winded
> affect ability to drive?
I didn't say anything about lung function; I was thinking more about
problems walking; i.e. using one's legs, which are crucial for brake and
gas pedal application. My point was that if one has increased risk
factors (in this case, age at least, and perhaps a handicap), one should
reconsider use of supersized vehicle like a Chevy Suburban. Of course,
it is generally useless to attempt to get an SUV driver to consider the
risk his vehicle might pose to others. I think it's actually a selling
point to many of them.
FWIW, her vehicle did not have handicapped plates. It was a vanity
plate that said "JOANANDY". A white Suburban. Just so people know
what to watch out for.
> Interestingly, after you first posted this and noted the lack
> of coverage, the lead story on the TV news was a photo of a similar
> incident in Weymouth. See
> http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=429296
> In that case the [P]"olice are charging [88-year-old Lillian] Banks
> with driving to endanger and are requesting a revocation of her
> driver's license by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Geez, these car vs. storefront accidents are a lot more common than I
thought.
Dave
Ron Newman
Dave Stallard <stal...@nospam.net> wrote:
> FWIW, her vehicle did not have handicapped plates. It was a vanity
> plate that said "JOANANDY".
Are these always mutually exclusive? Do plates exist that are both
"vanity" and handicapped?
Dave Stallard
> Are these always mutually exclusive? Do plates exist that are both
> "vanity" and handicapped?
I don't think so. I (and another witness) did notice the plate, because
of the vanity.
Dave
Mary Malmros
Ron Newman wrote:
I didn't think that most states even bothered to issue handicapped
plates any more. It's a rearview window tag, at least in NY.
David Chesler
> I didn't think that most states even bothered to issue handicapped
> plates any more. It's a rearview window tag, at least in NY.
It's the user's choice in MA. I don't know what's the advantage
of plates. The tag can more easily go with the individual, regardless
of what car the individual is riding or driving in.
Either way the privilege may only be exercised when the affected
individual is getting out of or into the car.
As people are catching onto it[*], and as the population grows older,
I'm finding the reserved spaces are more often all in use.
[*]It's not a very high standard of disability to qualify. Some
folks who qualify could make do with walking a little further than
the first spot, if they take it slowly.
David Chesler
> David Chesler wrote:
>>> if you're 70 years old and handicapped, and having difficulties
>>> with things like brakes and gas pedals, did you ever think that maybe
>>> you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy vehicle that could crash
>>> through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??
>> How does an inability to walk 200 yards without getting winded
>> affect ability to drive?
>
> I didn't say anything about lung function; I was thinking more about
> problems walking; i.e. using one's legs, which are crucial for brake and
> gas pedal application. My point was that if one has increased risk
> factors (in this case, age at least, and perhaps a handicap), one should
> reconsider use of supersized vehicle like a Chevy Suburban.
Agreed that if you can't drive you shouldn't drive. You seem to think
that qualifying for a handicapped placard in itself makes one more
likely to be unable to drive. The applications for handicapped placards
ask much more about stamina than dexterity. The two are largely
orthogonal.
I'm also not sure why you're concerned about the size: A compact car
will also kill somebody if driven into him.
> Of course,
> it is generally useless to attempt to get an SUV driver to consider the
> risk his vehicle might pose to others. I think it's actually a selling
> point to many of them.
In a car versus car collision, the larger car will probably win.
Does it make any difference when it's car versus storefront or
car versus storefront?
Dave Stallard
> Agreed that if you can't drive you shouldn't drive. You seem to think
> that qualifying for a handicapped placard in itself makes one more
> likely to be unable to drive. The applications for handicapped placards
> ask much more about stamina than dexterity. The two are largely
> orthogonal.
Again, I never said anything of the kind. I merely claimed that age
(and perhaps some handicaps) increase the probability that the driver
will get into an accident. And statistics and experience seem to bear
that out, at least for age. Of course, they are not "unable to drive".
It's simply that the probability that they will get into an accident
is higher.
> I'm also not sure why you're concerned about the size: A compact car
> will also kill somebody if driven into him.
!!! This has got to be the silliest statement I've heard in a long time.
At a given speed, a larger vehicle will do more damage than a smaller
one, guaranteed. You even allude to this below. Momentum is mass times
velocity.
Look, let's think about what risk is. Risk is the probability that a
bad thing will happen, multiplied by the magnitude of the badness. You
can reduce risk by reducing either factor. If the probability term
increases in some unavoidable way (like age), you can still mitigate the
increased risk by reducing the magnitude term (i.e. reducing the size
and destructiveness of the vehicle you drive). It's what prudent and
sensible people would do.
> In a car versus car collision, the larger car will probably win.
> Does it make any difference when it's car versus storefront or
> car versus storefront?
The choice of the word "win" here, which I've often encountered in
discussions with SUV proponents, is psychologically very revealing.
Rather than merely survive the accident, such people want to triumph
over an "opponent" - preferably by destroying him.
Those who do not consider safety for others, do not deserve it for
themselves.
Dave
David Chesler
> Again, I never said anything of the kind. I merely claimed that age
> (and perhaps some handicaps) increase the probability that the driver
> will get into an accident.
>>>>> Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and handicapped
Try this: "Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and
Asian, and having difficulties with things like brakes and gas pedals,
did you ever think that maybe you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy
vehicle that could crash through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??"
Is the mentioning of ethnicity gratuitous? Objectionable?
Would it be wrong to infer that the writer is suggesting that
Asian septuagenarians should take even more measure of whether
they ought to be driving than non-Asian septuagenarians?
> And statistics and experience seem to bear
> that out, at least for age.
I didn't object to your mentioning age. Unfortunately that's
true, statistically, and members of either extreme of age should
examine themselves to see if their lack of judgement and experience
(if young) or vision and reaction time (if old) make the shoe fit
for them. It's often subtle and hard to realize about oneself.
>> I'm also not sure why you're concerned about the size: A compact car
>> will also kill somebody if driven into him.
>
> !!! This has got to be the silliest statement I've heard in a long time.
> At a given speed, a larger vehicle will do more damage than a smaller
> one, guaranteed. You even allude to this below. Momentum is mass times
> velocity.
Is it momentum or energy that kills?
Granted in a golf cart someone's not going to do much damage, but
for the "gas pedal got stuck" or "brake pedal suddenly and
mysteriously starting operating the throttle" type of accident,
it doesn't much matter. Enrico Caruso was driving a Chevy Corsica.
Russell Weller, 86, drove a 1992 Buick LeSabre through a farmer
market in Santa Monica in 2003, killing 10 people. (One witness
described it as plowing through the crowd like a Sherman tank,
which is considerably heavier than a downsized LeSabre.)
> Look, let's think about what risk is. Risk is the probability that a
> bad thing will happen, multiplied by the magnitude of the badness.
No, that's exposure or expected cost.
> You
> can reduce risk by reducing either factor. If the probability term
> increases in some unavoidable way (like age), you can still mitigate the
> increased risk by reducing the magnitude term (i.e. reducing the size
> and destructiveness of the vehicle you drive). It's what prudent and
> sensible people would do.
How much is the expected cost mitigated by replacing an SUV
with a Corsica or a LeSabre? If a driver has reached the point
where he is likely enough to confuse the gas and brake pedals that
it's a concern, is there any size of car that it's acceptable for
him to be driving?
>> In a car versus car collision, the larger car will probably win.
>> Does it make any difference when it's car versus storefront or
>> car versus storefront?
>
> The choice of the word "win" here, which I've often encountered in
> discussions with SUV proponents, is psychologically very revealing.
It follows from the use of "versus", which is how the accidents
are usually reported, such as "truck versus bicyclist" or "motorcyclist
versus tree". FWIW, my favorite vehicles to operate, in order of
weight, weight 14,000 pounds, 4000 pounds, 2500 pounds, 400 pounds,
and 25 pounds, being a school bus, any of a number of luxury sedans,
my Fiero, a motorcycle, and a bicycle. The Firebird convertible
comes out at about 3600 pounds, but I haven't driven it in about
4 years. Not an SUV in there. I had a CJ-5 for a little while.
The ground clearance and 4WD came in handy because it had a habit
of tearing up its rear universal joints, so with no more than a
crescent wrench I could get out and get under, remove the remains
of the rear drive shaft, and continue my trip in effectively FWD.
I think it had a curb weight in the 1-ton range.
> Rather than merely survive the accident, such people want to triumph
> over an "opponent" - preferably by destroying him.
>
> Those who do not consider safety for others, do not deserve it for
> themselves.
You're reading a lot more into than is there.
Dave Stallard
> Dave Stallard wrote:
>> Again, I never said anything of the kind. I merely claimed that age
>> (and perhaps some handicaps) increase the probability that the driver
>> will get into an accident.
>
> >>>>> Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and handicapped
>
> Try this: "Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and
> Asian, and having difficulties with things like brakes and gas pedals,
> did you ever think that maybe you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy
> vehicle that could crash through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??"
>
> Is the mentioning of ethnicity gratuitous? Objectionable?
No, just silly and irrelevant. "Asian" doesn't make any difference in
terms of being able to do things. "Handicapped" does, by definition.
Which things, depends on the handicap.
> Is it momentum or energy that kills?
Doesn't matter; both are linear in mass
> Granted in a golf cart someone's not going to do much damage, but
> for the "gas pedal got stuck" or "brake pedal suddenly and
> mysteriously starting operating the throttle" type of accident,
> it doesn't much matter. Enrico Caruso was driving a Chevy Corsica.
> Russell Weller, 86, drove a 1992 Buick LeSabre through a farmer
> market in Santa Monica in 2003, killing 10 people. (One witness
> described it as plowing through the crowd like a Sherman tank,
> which is considerably heavier than a downsized LeSabre.)
Awful incident, and I hope Weller is in jail, though I doubt the witness
ever saw a Sherman tank plowing through anything, unless he was a WWII
vet.
> How much is the expected cost mitigated by replacing an SUV
> with a Corsica or a LeSabre? If a driver has reached the point
> where he is likely enough to confuse the gas and brake pedals that
> it's a concern, is there any size of car that it's acceptable for
> him to be driving?
You keep falling back on all or nothing arguments. I'm not saying it's
all or nothing. I'm saying that if one term in the risk (or expected
cost if you prefer) goes up, the other term have to go down, if you
don't want the total to go up. If your driving skill goes down,
consider a less destructive vehicle than a f*cking Chevy Suburban with a
V-8! That way, if your foot gets stuck on the accelerator, you might
not go all the way through the f*cking wall. Is that so hard to understand?
>> The choice of the word "win" here, which I've often encountered in
>> discussions with SUV proponents, is psychologically very revealing.
>
> It follows from the use of "versus", which is how the accidents
> are usually reported, such as "truck versus bicyclist" or "motorcyclist
> versus tree".
I've had plenty of arguments with SUV drivers which were not accident
reports, and in which the word "versus" did not appear, yet the concept
of "winning" did.
>> Those who do not consider safety for others, do not deserve it for
>> themselves.
>
> You're reading a lot more into than is there.
I'm not saying you, but there are a lot of SUV drivers out there who are
very selfish about their own perception of safety, which comes at the
expense of other people's.
Dave
John S
> David Chesler wrote:
> > Dave Stallard wrote:
> >> Again, I never said anything of the kind. I merely claimed that age
> >> (and perhaps some handicaps) increase the probability that the driver
> >> will get into an accident.
> >
> > >>>>> Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and handicapped
> >
> > Try this: "Jesus Christ, lady, if you're 70 years old and
> > Asian, and having difficulties with things like brakes and gas pedals,
> > did you ever think that maybe you shouldn't be driving a huge heavy
> > vehicle that could crash through walls and KILL PEOPLE!??"
So an Escort, which I presume would be acceptable to you, would unable to KILL
PEOPLE? Hmm.
>
> >
> > Is the mentioning of ethnicity gratuitous? Objectionable?
>
> No, just silly and irrelevant. "Asian" doesn't make any difference in
> terms of being able to do things. "Handicapped" does, by definition.
> Which things, depends on the handicap.
>
> > Is it momentum or energy that kills?
>
> Doesn't matter; both are linear in mass
But energy is equal to 1/2 (mass) (velocity)^2, and it is energy that is
absorbed as damage/injury occurs. The speed of the vehicle is much more
important than its mass. If I was injured, I wouldn't feel better that I was
injured by a Buick Sedan instead of a Suburban.
> > Granted in a golf cart someone's not going to do much damage, but
> > for the "gas pedal got stuck" or "brake pedal suddenly and
> > mysteriously starting operating the throttle" type of accident,
> > it doesn't much matter. Enrico Caruso was driving a Chevy Corsica.
> > Russell Weller, 86, drove a 1992 Buick LeSabre through a farmer
> > market in Santa Monica in 2003, killing 10 people. (One witness
> > described it as plowing through the crowd like a Sherman tank,
> > which is considerably heavier than a downsized LeSabre.)
>
> Awful incident, and I hope Weller is in jail, though I doubt the witness
> ever saw a Sherman tank plowing through anything, unless he was a WWII
> vet.
Should she get more or less jail time than a convicted serial brutal child
rapist in Vermont?
>
>
> > How much is the expected cost mitigated by replacing an SUV
> > with a Corsica or a LeSabre? If a driver has reached the point
> > where he is likely enough to confuse the gas and brake pedals that
> > it's a concern, is there any size of car that it's acceptable for
> > him to be driving?
>
> You keep falling back on all or nothing arguments. I'm not saying it's
> all or nothing. I'm saying that if one term in the risk (or expected
> cost if you prefer) goes up, the other term have to go down, if you
> don't want the total to go up. If your driving skill goes down,
> consider a less destructive vehicle than a f*cking Chevy Suburban with a
> V-8!
How did the number of cyinders in the engine affect the accident or its
severity? Now I'm curious.
> That way, if your foot gets stuck on the accelerator, you might
> not go all the way through the f*cking wall. Is that so hard to understand?
What was this wall made out of that it might have repelled a LeSabre but not a
Silverado? Recall that KE=1/2 (mass)(velocity)^2 so a slightly faster sedan
would do the same potential maximum damage as a Silverado with twice the mass.
> >> The choice of the word "win" here, which I've often encountered in
> >> discussions with SUV proponents, is psychologically very revealing.
> >
> > It follows from the use of "versus", which is how the accidents
> > are usually reported, such as "truck versus bicyclist" or "motorcyclist
> > versus tree".
>
> I've had plenty of arguments with SUV drivers which were not accident
> reports, and in which the word "versus" did not appear, yet the concept
> of "winning" did.
Well there you go, you win.
>
>
> >> Those who do not consider safety for others, do not deserve it for
> >> themselves.
> >
> > You're reading a lot more into than is there.
>
> I'm not saying you, but there are a lot of SUV drivers out there who are
> very selfish about their own perception of safety, which comes at the
> expense of other people's.
How so? Are they bumping into people and buildings for fun?
David Chesler
> No, just silly and irrelevant. "Asian" doesn't make any difference in
> terms of being able to do things. "Handicapped" does, by definition.
> Which things, depends on the handicap.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. I thought I saw that implied in
your mentioning of handicap, but then you seemed to be backpedaling
from it. "Handicap" encompasses a wide variety of things which one
is unable to do. The application asks whether the applicant, in the
opinion of the certifying medical professional, can walk far (which
results in the granting of the placard) and if the applicant is
unable to drive (which results in revocation of the driver license.)
>
>> Is it momentum or energy that kills?
>
> Doesn't matter; both are linear in mass
John S. addressed the point. Mass is easily overwhelmed by
the velocity term.
>> How much is the expected cost mitigated by replacing an SUV
>> with a Corsica or a LeSabre? If a driver has reached the point
>> where he is likely enough to confuse the gas and brake pedals that
>> it's a concern, is there any size of car that it's acceptable for
>> him to be driving?
>
> You keep falling back on all or nothing arguments.
Yes. You're saying SUV matters, I'm asking where, on the
continuum of cars, they're small enough, because I don't
think there is a size of car that makes it an acceptable
risk for such a car to be operated by someone who is likely
to confuse the gas and brake pedals. If Granny is getting so
old that she should give up her SUV for a Corsica so that if
she drives into a wall she won't kill as many people, she
shouldn't be driving at all. (If the ship has just been
ripped open by an iceberg, the arrangement of the deck chairs
does not matter.)
> I'm not saying it's
> all or nothing. I'm saying that if one term in the risk (or expected
> cost if you prefer) goes up, the other term have to go down, if you
> don't want the total to go up. If your driving skill goes down,
> consider a less destructive vehicle than a f*cking Chevy Suburban with a
> V-8! That way, if your foot gets stuck on the accelerator, you might
> not go all the way through the f*cking wall. Is that so hard to understand?
I understand it, but I disagree with it.
(I agree with it on the younger extreme: If you're a new driver, drive
something safe and cheap for the first year. At one time safe meant
big exclusively. And take other measures to insure safety, like
wear your seatbelt, don't take passengers, don't drive when at all
tired or distracted or with any alcohol influence, don't use a cell
phone. But inexperience can only be gotten over with experience.)
The difference in expected cost between a fully able driver and a
driver whose abilities have decreased due to age to the point where
it's a concern are orders of magnitude greater than the difference
in expected cost between such a driver in an SUV and the same driver
in the smallest road-worthy car.
Dick Margulis
> The difference in expected cost between a fully able driver and a
> driver whose abilities have decreased due to age to the point where
> it's a concern are orders of magnitude greater than the difference
> in expected cost between such a driver in an SUV and the same driver
> in the smallest road-worthy car.
>
This whole conversation has been fascinating. However, objective
decisions about whether someone should or should not be driving are hard
to come by and harder to implement in the real world. A 70-year-old is
not old; absent fairly severe and obvious mental impairment, a
70-year-old's license is not going to be taken away by her own physician
or by the state.
Heck, it's hard enough to get a habitual drunk off the road after
multiple convictions. But in the case of someone whose reflexes are
slowing with age, who is starting to show signs of confusion, etc., even
with the individual's children lobbying the doctor and insurance company
and driver testing clinic and RMV, it's hard to bring down that guillotine.
The typical scenario I've seen played out multiple times (and
participated in once myself) is this:
1. The parent starts coming home with little dings on the car and
doesn't know how they got there.
2. Next, there's an episode of taking a wrong turn on a long-familiar
route, followed by an episode of following directions to a new
destination and getting lost for three or four hours before seeking help
(even though there's a fully charged emergency-only cell phone sitting
right there on the passenger seat).
3. Next, the insurance is up for renewal and the insurance company,
based solely on the parent being over 80, sends a form for the physician
to complete, certifying that the parent is okay to drive. (You don't get
this letter if you're only 70.) The parent calls the kids for advice on
what to do with the letter. The kids feign sympathy while secretly
jumping up and down in giddy excitement. Phew! We don't have to be the
bad guys. It can be the insurance company.
4. Next, the kids call the doc and lobby for him to tell the insurance
company that mom or dad can't drive anymore. The doc doesn't want to be
the bad guy, either. So he sets up an appointment for the driver
recertification testing clinic (or whatever it's called where you live).
Great! They'll be the bad guys.
5. The parent goes in for the test. The report comes back: "Okay to
drive; advise patient it would be better not to drive at night and to
stay off major highways." Oh shit! They don't want to be the bad guys,
either. And the parent is already not driving at night and staying off
major highways. Now what?
6. The buck stops with the kids. They sit the parent down and deliver
the ultimatum. If you want to continue living independently, you can't
drive. If you defy us, we'll ship you off to assisted living.
7. The parent finally gives up the car, hopefully without having killed
anyone in the months since step 1 of this little drama.
So you guys can go on arguing as long as you want about whether
so-and-so should or shouldn't drive and what kind of vehicle is best.
But out here in the real world, it really doesn't matter what conclusion
you come to. Stopping someone from driving is on an order of difficulty
comparable to removing a gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hand.
Ron Newman
Dick Margulis <marg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 6. The buck stops with the kids. They sit the parent down and deliver
> the ultimatum. If you want to continue living independently, you can't
> drive. If you defy us, we'll ship you off to assisted living.
The problem here is that in many places (not Porter Square), it's nearly
impossible to "live independently" without driving a car.
Dick Margulis
Well, yes, that's the dilemma, isn't it? The fact is, though, that when
your parents get to the point that they shouldn't be driving anymore,
there are alternative methods of transport, albeit not as convenient.
There are taxis and car services and subsidized senior transport
services. And, yes, some of them may involve learning to deal with a new
situation. But, generally, the cost is less, over the course of a year,
than that of owning a car.
In this context, "living independently" doesn't mean going all over town
at the drop of a hat. It means maintaining your own home and maintaining
some sort of social life. But it requires planning and it requires
accepting the help of friends, relatives, and paid strangers to get you
through the week. For some people it means moving to an "independent
living" apartment in a facility built for the purpose, where health aids
and other staff are available if needed and you can cook in your own
kitchen if you want to or walk down the hall to the dining room if you
prefer. Either condition is considered preferable, by most people, to
"assisted living," which involves less freedom, more intervention by
strangers, a lot of really uninteresting group activities, and moving to
a one- or two-room residence with about a tenth of the possessions that
are dear to you.
Pete from Boston
My advice, having watched people close to me lose freedom, mobility,
and independence, is consider how much of your life now depends on
those things. Consider how much of your interaction with other people
depends on things like money, car, job, etc. Think about how much of
what's really important to your quality of life is dependent on these
tenuous mechanisms and would be gone were they to disappear.
The more complex you make your life now, the more difficult it's going
to be when you can't manage all those things. Preachy, perhaps
simplistic, but it's my experience that it's true -- if you can find
fulfillment (emotionally and functionally) in ways that aren't going to
become out of your reach all of a sudden one day, you'll be better off
in the long run. If your life depends on twenty-minute drives all the
time, you're going to face a precipitous drop-off at some point in the
standard of living you're accustomed to.
There's some irony in the fact that it's so often the young that move
to the city and the old that flee to remote places. Having support
mechanisms close by -- both people and just everday resources like
stores or whatever -- goes a very long way.
Dick Margulis
I completely agree. When I retire (Hah! Like I'm ever going to be able
to afford to retire), I want to be in walking distance of everything I
need. The only time in my life when I was a healthy weight was when I
lived in Manhattan and walked everywhere. Even now, in a leafy,
residential area of New Haven, I have to drive to get to the
supermarket, but I walk for most other errands. A mile here, a mile
there. Not enough to lose weight, but enough to stay flexible.
I think my parents' generation got caught in a lot of cultural traps
that are relatively easy for us to see from this distance but that they
were oblivious to. One of those was equating the good life with
middle-class externalities rather than with lifelong learning and
growth. When those externalities started to be taken away, a lot of them
lost their sense of self-worth. A shame, really, and it isn't obvious
that our generation will do better. All we can do is try our best, I
suppose.
Carl Witthoft
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
Absolutely true, but not an excuse.
R Philip Dowds
Oddly enough, this is turning out to be one of the least ideological,
most genuinely thoughtful dialogues on ne-dot. I will offer my own
contribution:
For some reason, we've decided to issue one-size-fits-all driver's
licenses. Once you get your license for a passenger car, you can drive
an Escort, a Ferrari, or a Hummer. All the same, right?
I've long believed that passenger car driver's licenses should come in
at least two classes: One class is unrestricted for any vehicle
registered as a "passenger car" (which itself has proven to be a highly
elastic and democratic classification). The other class is restricted
to vehicles relatively light and slow, in the belief that light vehicles
traveling slowly are likely to cause less damage to the general public
and innocent bystanders. Let's say "light and slow" means under 2800
lbs; less than 80 hp; and with an accelerator cut-off at 45 mph max.
Your license restricts you to "light and slow" if you are very young
(under 21), very old (over 70), accident-prone, or
inebriation-convicted. It allows you to commute to work, drive to the
store, visit your grandchildren, etc, but deprives you of a fast, heavy
weapon if you don't deserve it, or might abuse it, or probably can't
handle it. And it doesn't cost you money, because it forces you into a
vehicle *cheaper* than the one you'd otherwise buy.
Is this un-American?
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
Dick Margulis
> Oddly enough, this is turning out to be one of the least ideological,
> most genuinely thoughtful dialogues on ne-dot.
I must apologize. I didn't mean to cause a ruckus ;-)
I will offer my own
> contribution:
> The other class is restricted
> to vehicles relatively light and slow, in the belief that light vehicles
> traveling slowly are likely to cause less damage to the general public
> and innocent bystanders. Let's say "light and slow" means under 2800
> lbs; less than 80 hp; and with an accelerator cut-off at 45 mph max.
>
> RPD / Cambridge
> Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
>
Philip,
In the "facts can be your friends" department, this idea of yours has a
glaring problem. Unless you propose to restrict WHERE such a license is
valid (and put a big sticker on the car and embed a transponder in the
licensee, to make identification and enforcement easy), you run up
against the problem that too-slow drivers cause more accidents than
speeders cause. Ask a traffic engineer (I have).
In any case, there are all kinds of impairment and we need different
mitigations for them.
We already have, in many states, progressively less restrictive rules
for young drivers. Rules I've seen in various places: (a) Nobody under
18 is permitted to drive in NYC, no matter where they're licensed; (b)
for the first year (in various states), you can't drive after dark, or
after 9 pm, as the case may be; (c) for the first year you can't drive
with anyone else in the car other than an adult over age x; (d) for the
first six months, you can't drive on the Interstate system. And there
are others, I'm sure.
I've seen judges provide restricted licenses to people convicted of DWI:
Only drive to and from work. Period.
I've seen elderly drivers restricted, as I suggested earlier, to daytime
driving only on surface roads (not highways).
I think these are reasonable, if imperfect, approaches. Your idea might
work in some combination with one or another of these. But we do want
young drivers to learn to drive safely at highway speeds. So forcing
them into speed-governed and weight-limited cars would probably not be a
great idea.
Dick
R Philip Dowds
> R Philip Dowds wrote:
>
>> Oddly enough, this is turning out to be one of the least ideological,
>> most genuinely thoughtful dialogues on ne-dot.
>
>
> I must apologize. I didn't mean to cause a ruckus ;-)
>
> I will offer my own
>
>> contribution:
>
>
>
>> The other class is restricted to vehicles relatively light and slow,
>> in the belief that light vehicles traveling slowly are likely to cause
>> less damage to the general public and innocent bystanders. Let's say
>> "light and slow" means under 2800 lbs; less than 80 hp; and with an
>> accelerator cut-off at 45 mph max.
>> RPD / Cambridge
>> Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
>>
>
> Philip,
>
> In the "facts can be your friends" department, this idea of yours has a
> glaring problem. Unless you propose to restrict WHERE such a license is
> valid (and put a big sticker on the car and embed a transponder in the
> licensee, to make identification and enforcement easy), you run up
> against the problem that too-slow drivers cause more accidents than
> speeders cause. Ask a traffic engineer (I have).
>
Other than Mass Pike and the other Interstates, where is 45 mph "too
slow"? Do you really want marginal drivers on an 80 mph Route 95? (And
yes, it really is 80 mph, and I know, because I drive it at that speed,
and I'm not passing much of anybody. Near as I can tell, the police
have given up.)
Actually, you almost tried to make a different point: That
enforcement of licenses classed against vehicle type is too complicated
to pursue. Well, maybe, but no more than any other kind of
violation-driven enforcement. In other words, if and when you're
stopped for a moving violation, and it turns out you're driving a
vehicle outside your competency class, then you lose your license
altogether, and get fined as well. Perfect? No. Practical? Yes.
Often effective? Yes. It's how we do our driving enforcement now. If
and when we do it at all.
> In any case, there are all kinds of impairment and we need different
> mitigations for them.
>
> We already have, in many states, progressively less restrictive rules
> for young drivers. Rules I've seen in various places: (a) Nobody under
> 18 is permitted to drive in NYC, no matter where they're licensed; (b)
> for the first year (in various states), you can't drive after dark, or
> after 9 pm, as the case may be; (c) for the first year you can't drive
> with anyone else in the car other than an adult over age x; (d) for the
> first six months, you can't drive on the Interstate system. And there
> are others, I'm sure.
>
> I've seen judges provide restricted licenses to people convicted of DWI:
> Only drive to and from work. Period.
>
> I've seen elderly drivers restricted, as I suggested earlier, to daytime
> driving only on surface roads (not highways).
>
> I think these are reasonable, if imperfect, approaches.
I agree: Let's do some of this too.
Your idea might
> work in some combination with one or another of these. But we do want
> young drivers to learn to drive safely at highway speeds. So forcing
> them into speed-governed and weight-limited cars would probably not be a
> great idea.
If young drivers must learn high-speed driving in huge, hard-to-handle
vehicles, then I'd like them to learn, not on Day One, but when they're
a little older. If ancient drivers want to maintain their high-speed,
huge vehicle privileges, then they should be tested for skills every
year. Empirically verified drunks and incompetents should be denied
such privileges, maybe for years, maybe for longer.
Dick Margulis
> Dick Margulis wrote:
>> R Philip Dowds wrote:
>>
>>> The other class is restricted to vehicles relatively light and slow,
>>> in the belief that light vehicles traveling slowly are likely to
>>> cause less damage to the general public and innocent bystanders.
>>> Let's say "light and slow" means under 2800 lbs; less than 80 hp; and
>>> with an accelerator cut-off at 45 mph max.
>>> RPD / Cambridge
>>> Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
>>>
>>
>> Philip,
>>
>> In the "facts can be your friends" department, this idea of yours has
>> a glaring problem. Unless you propose to restrict WHERE such a license
>> is valid (and put a big sticker on the car and embed a transponder in
>> the licensee, to make identification and enforcement easy), you run up
>> against the problem that too-slow drivers cause more accidents than
>> speeders cause. Ask a traffic engineer (I have).
>>
>
> Other than Mass Pike and the other Interstates, where is 45 mph "too
> slow"?
45 is too slow anywhere that the general flow of traffic is going 55 or
60 or 65. The safest speed to drive is the same speed most other people
are driving, and a license restricted to speed and weight is nonetheless
not limited to place. That is, once you get outside congested eastern
MA, there are plenty of areas where 45 is too slow.
> Do you really want marginal drivers on an 80 mph Route 95? (And
> yes, it really is 80 mph, and I know, because I drive it at that speed,
> and I'm not passing much of anybody. Near as I can tell, the police
> have given up.)
No, I really do not want marginal drivers doing 80 on I-95. Not sure
what I can do about it, though. I don't want aggressive jerks in SUVs
doing 80 on I-95, either, even though their technical skills behind the
wheel are generally okay. But that's too bad for me, right.
> Actually, you almost tried to make a different point: That
> enforcement of licenses classed against vehicle type is too complicated
> to pursue.
Oh I don't know if it's too complicated. I'm sure the NSA could handle
it. Just make a condition of getting a license that the gummint can
implant a chip in you. That way it's MUCH easier to keep track of where
we all are, and a side benefit is the instant ability to enforce license
restrictions, especially if you combine it with a remote-control kill
switch on vehicle engines. Let's put this plan on the ballot. I'm sure
most Americans would think it's a perfectly fine idea and wouldn't
infringe on their liberties one little bit.
> Well, maybe, but no more than any other kind of
> violation-driven enforcement. In other words, if and when you're
> stopped for a moving violation, and it turns out you're driving a
> vehicle outside your competency class, then you lose your license
> altogether, and get fined as well. Perfect? No. Practical? Yes.
> Often effective? Yes. It's how we do our driving enforcement now. If
> and when we do it at all.
The fact is, though, that people who've had their licenses revoked
continue to drive whenever, wherever, and however they feel they need
to. There are no flashing signs telling us there's an unlicensed driver
in the car in the next lane. So I don't know how effective our
enforcement system really is.
Mary Malmros
R Philip Dowds wrote:
> Other than Mass Pike and the other Interstates, where is 45 mph "too
> slow"?
Much of Route 2.
Much of Route 3.
All of the interstate-adjuncts (495, etc.).
Parts of Routes 5/10.
Much of Route 6.
Want more?
> Do you really want marginal drivers on an 80 mph Route 95?
I don't want them on the road at all. But what mechanism do you want to
use to remove them? Simply saying, "No, you can't drive," doesn't work
-- that's been proven.
Remove This
--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
"Mary Malmros" <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote in message
news:0_sLf.8862$PL2.2791@trndny03...
Cheryl Isaak
<spamdu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> add Lowell Connector + I 290 Worcester
>
Route 293 from the Route 3 split to the end! (gawd I could hate that stretch
of road)
Cheryl
John S
> add Lowell Connector + I 290 Worcester
>
I-290 IS an Interstate. I would add just about any limited access freeway, no
matter what state, to the list.
John S
> Other than Mass Pike and the other Interstates, where is 45 mph "too
> slow"?
MA 24?
CT 9?
Hundreds or thousands of others?
> Do you really want marginal drivers on an 80 mph Route 95? (And
> yes, it really is 80 mph, and I know, because I drive it at that speed,
> and I'm not passing much of anybody. Near as I can tell, the police
> have given up.)
I'm not sure about your comment about about "Other than Mass Pike and other
Interstates where is 45 mph too slow" which implies that you are against your
speed restriction there, with respect to your comment about (Interstate) Route
95 which implies you are in favor of a speed restriction for an Interstate.
John S
Where is that?
Marc Dashevsky
Manchester, NH
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
John S
> John S <joh...@no.spam> writes in article %:
> > x`Cheryl Isaak wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/24/06 12:56 AM, in article wcxLf.6515$F94.250@trndny02, "Remove This"
> > > <spamdu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > add Lowell Connector + I 290 Worcester
> > > >
> > > Route 293 from the Route 3 split to the end! (gawd I could
> > > hate that stretch of road)
> >
> > Where is that?
>
> Manchester, NH
Assuming you mean I-293, Route 3 connects to it via Route 101 and Route 3A. Where
is the 'split'?
Cheryl Isaak
<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
Heading north, there are several - 293 bears left from 93 and again at 101
and RT3. Heading south is easier - sort of - 293 bears away from 3 in
Bedford, but you better be reading those signs if you have never done it
before.
Cheryl
Cheryl Isaak
<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
NH - the loop around the west side of Manchester. Tough to get on or off, at
the downtown ramps and very twisty in spots.
CPI
Mary Malmros
John S wrote:
> Remove This wrote:
>
>
>>add Lowell Connector + I 290 Worcester
>>
>
>
> I-290 IS an Interstate.
Starts where, ends where?
Howard S Shubs
Mary Malmros <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote:
> > I-290 IS an Interstate.
>
> Starts where, ends where?
Southwest of Worcester, at the northern termination of I395 out of
Connecticut, ends in Hudson, Massachusetts.
--
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams.
from "Ode", Arthur O'Shaughnessy
David Chesler
>> I-290 IS an Interstate.
>
> Starts where, ends where?
Interstates don't have to be interstate. 3-digit-numbered
spurs and bypasses are Interstates (that is, part of
Eisenhower's Defense highway network.)
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Mary Malmros wrote:
> >> I-290 IS an Interstate.
> >
> > Starts where, ends where?
> Interstates don't have to be interstate. 3-digit-numbered
> spurs and bypasses are Interstates (that is, part of
> Eisenhower's Defense highway network.)
Indeed. Hawaii has an interstate, for example.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
John S
Right, I agree with that about I-293, although it has no direct connection to US
Route 3.
Mary Malmros
Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <208Mf.249$dj2.113@trndny04>,
> Mary Malmros <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>I-290 IS an Interstate.
>>
>>Starts where, ends where?
>
>
> Southwest of Worcester, at the northern termination of I395 out of
> Connecticut,
_In_ Connecticut? Or in Massachusetts?
Mary Malmros
David Chesler wrote:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>>> I-290 IS an Interstate.
>>
>>
>> Starts where, ends where?
>
>
> Interstates don't have to be interstate. 3-digit-numbered
> spurs and bypasses are Interstates (that is, part of
> Eisenhower's Defense highway network.)
I understand that they're part of the interstate highway system. That
wasn't the point.
John S
To recap, someone said, "Other than Mass Pike and the other Interstates,
where is 45 mph 'too slow'?"
Someone else pointed out that I-290 could be added to the list of roads
where 45 is too slow.
I mentioned that "I-290 is an Interstate" (so it's already on that new
list).
You were asking where I-290 starts/ends and someone responded.
So help me out, what is "the point" are you referring to?
Howard S Shubs
Mary Malmros <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote:
> > Southwest of Worcester, at the northern termination of I395 out of
> > Connecticut,
>
> _In_ Connecticut? Or in Massachusetts?
No, exactly what I said. To expand a bit, I395 comes north to I90
southwest of Worcester, and becomes I290. From there, it proceeds
northeast to I495 and terminates.
Mary Malmros
John S wrote:
The point is that whether you add 290 to the list or not, there are
plenty of roads in Mass where 45 mph is 'too slow'.
John S
Mary Malmros wrote:
Right, I think that was established a while back in the thread.
But later, you snipped everything else after "I-290 IS an Interstate" and said
"Starts where, ends where," before saying 'that wasn't the point.' So what was
the 'point' about "Starts where, ends where?" I'm afraid you lost me there.
Mary Malmros
Oh, I was just wondering because of the way it was described -- I've
driven it as far as Worcester/pike and thought it ended there, and the
CT reference confused me.
Wombat
If you drive 75 mph on an interstate, does that make you a hurricane?
--
This is Usenet. It's not Google, it's not a chatroom,
it's not email, and it's not a website.
And it's definitely not your own personal blog.
Mary Malmros
Wombat wrote:
> "Mary Malmros" <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote in message
> news:fNsMf.632$v34.20@trndny02...
>
>>Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>
>>>In article <208Mf.249$dj2.113@trndny04>,
>>> Mary Malmros <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I-290 IS an Interstate.
>>>>
>>>>Starts where, ends where?
>>>
>>>Southwest of Worcester, at the northern termination of I395 out of
>>>Connecticut,
>>
>>_In_ Connecticut? Or in Massachusetts?
>
>
> If you drive 75 mph on an interstate, does that make you a hurricane?
No, but raising the question might label you as a literal-minded dunce.
Wombat
>> If you drive 75 mph on an interstate, does that make you a hurricane?
>
> No, but raising the question might label you as a literal-minded dunce.
You mean like someone who thinks an "Interstate" highway
has to connect different states?
Does that fish-hook in your gill hurt?
Mary Malmros
Wombat wrote:
> "Mary Malmros" <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote in message
> news:6uXNf.8712$UN1.31@trndny08...
>
>
>>>If you drive 75 mph on an interstate, does that make you a hurricane?
>>
>>No, but raising the question might label you as a literal-minded dunce.
>
>
> You mean like someone who thinks an "Interstate" highway
> has to connect different states?
> Does that fish-hook in your gill hurt?
Shoe's on the other foot, wombat. How's it feel being pwned?
John S
> "Mary Malmros" <malmro...@verizonnospam.net> wrote in message
> news:6uXNf.8712$UN1.31@trndny08...
>
> >> If you drive 75 mph on an interstate, does that make you a hurricane?
> >
> > No, but raising the question might label you as a literal-minded dunce.
>
> You mean like someone who thinks an "Interstate" highway
> has to connect different states?
> Does that fish-hook in your gill hurt?
>
> --
> This is Usenet. It's not Google, it's not a chatroom,
> it's not email, and it's not a website.
> And it's definitely not your own personal blog.
This is an ne.* group, so many would disagree that this is Usenet. Usenet
has often been described as the big eight. :-)
Dave Stallard
> Dave Stallard wrote:
>> No, just silly and irrelevant. "Asian" doesn't make any difference in
>> terms of being able to do things. "Handicapped" does, by definition.
>> Which things, depends on the handicap.
>
> OK, now we're getting somewhere. I thought I saw that implied in
> your mentioning of handicap, but then you seemed to be backpedaling
> from it. "Handicap" encompasses a wide variety of things which one
> is unable to do. The application asks whether the applicant, in the
> opinion of the certifying medical professional, can walk far (which
> results in the granting of the placard) and if the applicant is
> unable to drive (which results in revocation of the driver license.)
You seem to repose considerable trust, perhaps misplaced, in the
judgment of this certifying medical professional.
I finally saw the police report over the weekend. The driver Joan
Puccino did indeed have a handicap placard. The officer saw a cane in
her vehicle, and asked her what it was for. Puccino responded that she
had numbness in her left leg due to back injury, and arthritis in her
right hip. She stated that these conditions had not interfered with
her driving that day. Her daughter arrived on scene, and told the
officers that she did not think her mother should be driving. Puccino
was subsequently given an "immediate threat" citation.
So here is a case where a person's handicap may well have contributed to
an accident, even though a "medical professional" said it wouldn't.
>>> Is it momentum or energy that kills?
>>
>> Doesn't matter; both are linear in mass
>
> John S. addressed the point. Mass is easily overwhelmed by
> the velocity term.
I guess I don't see the point of this, unless it's somehow assumed that
the driver of the smaller car will be traveling faster to compensate and
give himself more destructiveness.
In any case, the kinetic energy of the vehicle is far from the only
safety issue for SUVs. Among other issues is the high ground clearance
and tall front of the vehicle, which allows it to ride up and deliver
force above the protective elements of regular cars. The tall front
also makes the SUV much more destructive in collisions with pedestrians.
A regular car striking a pedestrian is liable to flip her up onto the
softer hood of the vehicle. An SUV is more likely to knock the
pedestrian down, and cause much more severe injury. That's what
happened to the woman who was severely hurt in this accident. Though of
course, she wasn't a pedestrian. She was just sitting in a cafe.
Yes, if a person probability of causing an accident is high, of course
they shouldn't be driving. But this probability is a continuum, and it
changes with time and age. At a certain point, it may not yet be
"high", but it is definitely highER. At that point, some risk
mitigation *for others* is in order. My parents are that age, in fact
older, and they don't drive SUVs or trucks like this selfish twit. The
rights of the handicapped do not extend to making other people
handicapped.
Dave
John S
lot more often emanating from vehicles, both stopped and in motion. I'm
a lot more concerned about driving under the influence than I am of SUVs.
At that point, some risk
> mitigation *for others* is in order. My parents are that age, in fact
> older, and they don't drive SUVs or trucks like this selfish twit. The
> rights of the handicapped do not extend to making other people handicapped.
Right. So if someone drives their sedan into a building and injures
others, should they receive a gentler punishment? Perhaps we could
consider it like time off for good behavior.