No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
drunk driving.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111213/a5da88cc-63e3-44cb-ac5e-31b011b19e32

No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges

December 13, 2011 9:33 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — Texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while
driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed, federal safety
investigators declared Tuesday, urging all states to impose total bans
except for emergencies.

Inspired by recent deadly crashes — including one in which a teenager
sent or received 11 text messages in 11 minutes before an accident —
the recommendation would apply even to hands-free devices, a much
stricter rule than any current state law.

The unanimous recommendation by the five-member National
Transportation Safety Board would make an exception for devices deemed
to aid driver safety such as GPS navigation systems.

A group representing state highway safety offices called the
recommendation "a game-changer."

snip
__________________
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
put together!

Affirmative action is double racism. Persecuting whites in the belief
blacks can't make it on ability.

[necromancer]

Judy "Shit 4 Brains" Dairya spewed:

>
>I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
>penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
>drunk driving.

Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
like you from yourself. No wonder that america (sic) has been swirling
down the loo for the last 50 years.

Now, then do us all a big favour and blow your head off.

--
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

[C. E. White]

"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c49e68b9-3267-48b9...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> drunk driving.

I can go with banning texting, and even talking on hand held phones. BUT,
unless they are also going to ban talking to passengers, listening to the
radio, eating, drinking, etc., etc., while driving, I can't see banning
hands free devices.

NHTSA is like most nanny state bureacrcies that are close to out living
their usefulness - they have achieve 99% of their original goals but instead
of quietly down-sizing, they have to spend billion of dollars on trival
matters to prove they are still important. Unfortunately, they can't just
dig holes and fill them back up to keep busy, so they keep coming up with
more "suggestions" designed to prove they are worth keeping around.

Ed

[Steve]

Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
telephone usage. I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.

[Mrs Irish Mike]

On Dec 14, 5:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> telephone usage.  I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.

Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
charges could then brought.

[Mrs Irish Mike]

On Dec 14, 1:31 am, necromancer

<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>
> Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
> like you from yourself.

It would be a law to protect me from imbeciles who feel the need to
multi-task while driving. If someone wants to harm himself, I am all
for it as long as he knows exectly the consequences of his actions. I
would support a law that allowed drunk driving between 2AM and 3AM,
those who choose to drive during that 'happy hour' would know the
situation and adjust their schedual accordingly.

No wonder that america (sic) has been swirling
> down the loo for the last 50 years.
>

America swirling since 1961? Man on the moon, internet, decreased
infant mortality, sattelite communication, robotics, cleaner air and
water ... those are the signs of swirling? Bring more, please. Even
our homicide rate is the same as it was in 1961, and seems to be
trending down further. I guess as one gets older and more frail, one
sees the world as increasingly scarier.

[Steve]

They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...

[liberal]

On Dec 14, 2:23 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>

After an accident?????? Especially if an injury or death is involved.
Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.

[Mrs Irish Mike]

On Dec 14, 11:23 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...

Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?

From yesterday's news:

"
WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
Tuesday...

"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
and texting records when they launch an investigation."



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/12/13/20111213Drivers-Texting1213.html#ixzz1gXndLn2Z

Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.
Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights. Look
at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
records.

Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?

[Mrs Irish Mike]

On Dec 14, 12:03 pm, liberal <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.

Insulting is not an argument. Please, leave the discussion up to the
adults.

[Steve]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:18 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 11:23 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
>> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>
>Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?

Are you kidding? Do you really imagine that the police or the DA can
simply get your phone records and use them against you in court?

> From yesterday's news:
>
>"
>WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
>highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
>11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
>Tuesday...

Obviously done with a warrant...

>"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
>distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
>transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
>investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
>and texting records when they launch an investigation."

A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
investigations.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html

>
>Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/12/13/20111213Drivers-Texting1213.html#ixzz1gXndLn2Z
>
> Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.

Only with a warrant.. no warrant and it's inadmissible.

>Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights.

But not your telephone records.

>Look
>at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
>records.

<ROTFLOMAO> there is no "implied consent" for your phone records.
They need a warrant to get them...

> Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?

I'm not defending anything. I'm just telling you how it is...

[Steve]

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html

[Kalmia]

On Dec 13, 10:17 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> drunk driving.
>

> http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111213/a5da88cc-63e3-44cb-...

>
> No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges
>
> December 13, 2011 9:33 PM EST
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while
> driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed, federal safety
> investigators declared Tuesday, urging all states to impose total bans
> except for emergencies.
>
> Inspired by recent deadly crashes — including one in which a teenager
> sent or received 11 text messages in 11 minutes before an accident —
> the recommendation would apply even to hands-free devices, a much
> stricter rule than any current state law.
>
> The unanimous recommendation by the five-member National
> Transportation Safety Board would make an exception for devices deemed
> to aid driver safety such as GPS navigation systems.
>
> A group representing state highway safety offices called the
> recommendation "a game-changer."
>
> snip
> __________________
> Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
> put together!
>
> Affirmative action is double racism. Persecuting whites in the belief
> blacks can't make it on ability.

Sing it, bub. I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 14, 6:16 pm, Kalmia <tweeny90...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> Sing it, bub.  I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.-

What would do more good than laws is a PR campaign pointing out how
texting drivers are a huge menace to others. Put up billboards that
say texting drivers are a hundred times more dangerous to you than
terrorists.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 14, 2:31 am, necromancer

<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> Judy "Shit 4 Brains" Dairya spewed:
>
>
>
> >I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> >penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> >drunk driving.
>
> Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
> like you from yourself.

No that's not it at all, you moron. The idea is to protect people
from dangerous actions of other people. That's what govt's are for.
Seat-belt laws are nanny state, but not this.

[Harry K]

On Dec 14, 11:23 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>

The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the cellphone
records" as a stardard practice. How they are getting it done is not
explained.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 14, 4:01 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:18 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>

> <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 11:23 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> >> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>
> >Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?
>
> Are you kidding?   Do you really imagine that the police or the DA can
> simply get your phone records and use them against you in court?
>
> > From yesterday's news:
>
> >"
> >WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
> >highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
> >11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
> >Tuesday...
>
> Obviously done with a warrant...
>
> >"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
> >distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
> >transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
> >investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
> >and texting records when they launch an investigation."
>
> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
> and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
> investigations.http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
>
>
>

> >Read more:http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/12/13/20111213Drivers...

>
> > Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.
>
> Only with a warrant..  no warrant and it's inadmissible.
>
> >Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights.
>
> But not your telephone records.
>
> >Look
> >at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
> >records.
>
> <ROTFLOMAO>  there is no "implied consent" for your phone records.
> They need a warrant to get them...
>
> > Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?
>
> I'm not defending anything.  I'm just telling you how it is...

No, you are telling how your _think_ it is. They are getting the
records locked. How they are doing it is not stated.

Harry K

[Mrs Irish Mike]

On Dec 14, 8:57 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the cellphone
> records" as a stardard practice.  How they are getting it done is not
> explained.
>

It would be pretty easy to have the states pass an implied consent
attached to a drivers permit.

Our laws regarding drunk driving show that driving does not come with
all the protections our Constitution would seem to guarantee. People
who drive have consented to give evidence that is incriminating
(sobriety tests), failure to do so can lead to fines and imprisonment.
In effect, the Fifth Amendments rights, protecting one from giving
evidence that is self-incriminating, have been given up.

Drive on state roads then you have given permission to prove
sobriety. Not too hard to pass laws forcing drivers to surrender their
cell phone records to prove innocence in DWT (Texting) cases.

[Brent]

The above is a perfect demonstration of the slippery slope in action.

Once our rights have been violated in one area the next and following
areas are justified by those that went before.

I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving and forget
about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a problem... no more
moral outrage, less power for government, and ultimately less enjoyment
for busy body control feaks. And most of all, no revenue stream for
those in and close to government, those who participate in the various
rackets.

[Steve]

What nonsense... people who text or hold the phone on their ear
don't care one little bit about others....

[Steve]

Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
warrant..

>Harry K

[Steve]

I posted one of many cites that explain that phone records my not be
accessed without a warrant... and a warrant requires probable cause,
which isn't going to easy..

For instance, I often carry my phone in my briefcase which is usually
on the floor behind my seat. When I'm driving on my way to where I
start my bike ride, the phone is packed into my bike bag on my bike in
the back of the truck.. In either case, I can still use my phone via
bluetooth and there is no way anyone could tell I was using it or even
that I have a cell phone. I don't wear a bluetooth on my ear, it's
part of my truck's radio. My friend has the same kind of system in
her car and her cell phone is usually in her handbag when she uses it
as she drives.

[necromancer]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:07 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
<tween...@mypacks.net> wrote:

< snip Shit 4 Brain's crap >

>Sing it, bub. I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.

Then put down *your* phone, quit eating/drinking/playing with
yourself/blowing the dog or what the hell ever you are doing while
behind the wheel and pay attention to the fucking road while you are
driving for once.

Funny thing, I pay attention to the traffic around me when I'm out and
about. I note those that are behaving oddly and keep an eye on them
and if possible keep my distance from them and react accordingly if
they get too close. Know what the really strange thing is? 1) I dont
have anywhere near the number of near misses you seem to have and 2) I
don't need some idiotic rule from some power tripping nanny-stater to
tell me to drive defensively.

If some wannabe multitasker wants to wrap his car around a tree
because he thinks he can text and drive, I'm fine with it. As long as
he kills himself in the process. It's called Natural Selection - the
stupid weed themselves out and the smart move on. There are alot of us
who are getting sick of having to live in a dumbed down soceity just
to keep the moronss like that mouth breathing idiot, "Car Crashes Mean
Car Sales..." - or what the hell ever that that flag waving american
(sic) pinhead is calling itself - from collecting their well deserved
Darwin Award and having to keep people like yourself wrapped up in
your illusion of safety with out having to work for it.

BTW, did you know that your hero, "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales..." is
an admitted speeder, drunk driver and has admitted to killing someone
with its driving habits?

--
"Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash
so i must be doing something right."

--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr
Msg ID: ivadh2t9kd05ilrgd...@4ax.com

[necromancer]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:32:15 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>

>I can go with banning texting, and even talking on hand held phones. BUT,
>unless they are also going to ban talking to passengers, listening to the
>radio, eating, drinking, etc., etc., while driving, I can't see banning
>hands free devices.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Don't give the nanny-fascists any ideas!
Next thing you know, they are going to make breathing while driving
illegal...

[Jordon]

Brent wrote:

> On 2011-12-15, Mrs Irish Mike <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:57 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the
>>> cellphone records" as a stardard practice.  How they are
>>> getting it done is not explained.
>>>
>>
>> It would be pretty easy to have the states pass an implied
>> consent
>> attached to a drivers permit.
>>
>> Our laws regarding drunk driving show that driving does not
>> come with
>> all the protections our Constitution would seem to guarantee.
>> People who drive have consented to give evidence that is
>> incriminating (sobriety tests), failure to do so can lead to
>> fines and imprisonment. In effect, the Fifth Amendments rights,
>> protecting one from giving evidence that is self-incriminating,
>> have been given up.
>>
>> Drive on state roads then you have given permission to prove
>> sobriety. Not too hard to pass laws forcing drivers to
>> surrender their cell phone records to prove innocence in DWT
>> (Texting) cases.
>
> The above is a perfect demonstration of the slippery slope in
> action.

No slippery slope at all.

> Once our rights have been violated in one area the next and
> following areas are justified by those that went before.

Driving is not a right.

> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving and
> forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a
> problem... no more moral outrage, less power for government, and
> ultimately less enjoyment for busy body control feaks. And most
> of all, no revenue stream for those in and close to government,
> those who participate in the various rackets.

So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack Daniels
while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry about picking up
the pieces after the deaths? And extend that right to the drivers
piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?

Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.

[Harry K]

> >Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So "they are getting them" and "how they are...." just escapes you?

Whether by warrant or hocus pocus the fact is the article says they
_are_ getting them. I have even seen reports in the paper of the
results of such searches.

Harry K

[Harry K]

> as she drives.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you engage in dangerous driving practices. Survey after survey
show that just talking on a CP distracts attention from the road.

Now put up the straw man about talking to the passengers. That also
distracts but not ot the same extent and at least there is more than
just _you_ paying some attention to what is happening on the road.

Fact: CP use is causing accidents. Fact: NTSB is advocating a total
ban on drivers using them in any fashion.

Fact: the "multi-tasking" myth is just that. Human brains asre not
wired for multitasking, it works sequentially. A bit of attention to
one thing a bit to another but not at the same time. Doesn't happen.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 15, 3:26 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

And if they were going to quit doing it they wouldn't still be doing
it in states that do ban texting. Putting up billboards won't change
them.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 15, 5:28 am, necromancer

<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:07 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
>

> <tweeny90...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> < snip Shit 4 Brain's crap >
>
> >Sing it, bub.  I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.
>
> Then put down *your* phone, quit eating/drinking/playing with
> yourself/blowing the dog or what the hell ever you are doing while
> behind the wheel and pay attention to the fucking road while you are
> driving for once.
>
> Funny thing, I pay attention to the traffic around me when I'm out and
> about. I note those that are behaving oddly and keep an eye on them
> and if possible keep my distance from them and react accordingly if
> they get too close. Know what the really strange thing is? 1) I dont
> have anywhere near the number of near misses you seem to have and 2) I
> don't need some idiotic rule from some power tripping nanny-stater to
> tell me to drive defensively.
>
> If some wannabe multitasker wants to wrap his car around a tree
> because he thinks he can text and drive, I'm fine with it. As long as
> he kills himself in the process. It's called Natural Selection - the
> stupid weed themselves out and the smart move on.

And how many innocent people do they take with them while "weeding
themselves out"?

<snip>

Harry K

[N8N]

True to an extent, but it is also clear that some people are far
better at multitasking activities than others. Some people are
perfectly capable of driving safely while carrying on a cell
conversation; others are dangerously distracted simply changing the
radio station.

Unfortunately, the problem is that nearly everyone overestimates their
abilities...

nate

[Steve]

That's probably true, but fining them $500 would probably convince
them.

[Steve]

The article offers no documentation... do you really believe
everything some dingbat reporter writes?

>Harry K

[Steve]

...and that's the problem.

[Steve]

That's bullshit, of course..

>Now put up the straw man about talking to the passengers. That also
>distracts but not ot the same extent and at least there is more than
>just _you_ paying some attention to what is happening on the road.

Nonsense.. When I ride with my grandkids they aren't the least bit
interested in what's happening on the road... not any more then when
I'm talking to them on the phone..

>Fact: CP use is causing accidents. Fact: NTSB is advocating a total
>ban on drivers using them in any fashion.

...and banning handsfree devices it totally unenforceable..

[Jordon]

Talking on a cell phone does not create any kind of significant
risk, at least according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. They've introduced a new regulation that goes into
effect on January 1st that says that a driver of a commercial motor
vehicle can't touch their cell phone. The studies mentioned in the
following document...

http://goo.gl/qR86N (from the Federal Register)

say, it's looking for, and reaching for, and picking up, and
opening, and dialing, that cause the risk and it's not the intent
of the law to prohibit talking on a cell phone. If drivers have a
way to receive a call or place a call without taking their eyes off
the road, it's permissible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Agency does
not believe sufficient data exist to justify
a ban of both hand-held and hands-free
use of mobile telephones by drivers
operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
Based on available studies, FMCSA
proposed restricting only hand-held
mobile telephone use by CMV drivers.
While some driving simulator-based
studies found conversation to be risky,
the Olson, et al. (2009) and Hickman, et
al. (2010) studies found that ‘‘talking or
listening to a hands-free phone’’ and
‘‘talking or listening to a hand-held
phone’’ were relatively low-risk
activities and had only brief periods
when the drivers’ eyes were off the
forward roadway. It is not clear from
available studies if simply talking on a
mobile telephone while driving presents
a significant risk. The use of a cell
phone, however, involves a variety of
sub-tasks, some increasing and some
decreasing the odds of involvement in a
safety-critical event. The Hickman, et al.
(2010) study showed that reaching for a
cell phone while driving increased these
odds by 3.7 times. Dialing a cell phone
while driving increased the odds by 3.5
times. Reaching for a headset/earpiece
while driving increased the odds by 3.4
times. Talking or listening on a hands-
free cell phone while driving decreased
the odds by .7 times (i.e., protective
effect). Talking/listening on a hand-held
cell phone (odds ratios = .9) had a non-
significant odds ratio (i.e., no increase or
decrease in risk).

[Jordon]

Edit: If drivers have a way to receive a call or place a call
without touching their cell phone, it's permissable.

[necromancer]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:00:47 -0800 (PST), Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And how many innocent people do they take with them while "weeding
>themselves out"?

I think you mean how many inattentive dullards they take with them.

--
S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater:

"Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like
2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the
hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has
exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. "

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl
Msg ID: Xns9A59DDA463296r...@216.168.3.70

[Brent]

You need to pay closer attention.

>> Once our rights have been violated in one area the next and
>> following areas are justified by those that went before.
>
> Driving is not a right.

Prove it. You would be wise to stop believing what government tells
you. Especially when it benefits those who operate government.

>> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving and
>> forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a
>> problem... no more moral outrage, less power for government, and
>> ultimately less enjoyment for busy body control feaks. And most
>> of all, no revenue stream for those in and close to government,
>> those who participate in the various rackets.

> So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack Daniels
> while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry about picking up
> the pieces after the deaths? And extend that right to the drivers
> piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?
> Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.

Non-responsive emotional crap. Tell me, how is it different to the
person injured when it caused by a drunk driver vs. a soccer
mom who just couldn't be bothered to drive well?

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 15, 3:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> That's probably true, but fining them $500 would probably convince

> them.-

Take away their license for a year would do more good.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

You may be right but i think most driving texters are morons
brainwashed by TV shows. They see TV actors text-drive and just
assume it's cool. Let them know that texting drivers are killers and
maimers.

[Harry K]

> them.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It doesn't stop the DUIs and that is a _very_expensive process.
Repeat DUI offenders are common in jails.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 15, 8:01 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway

So there are no repeat DUI offenders? What _is_ the color of the sky
on your planet?

Harry K

[Harry K]

The average driver on the road can't even seem to "single" task.

> Unfortunately, the problem is that nearly everyone overestimates their
> abilities...
>

> nate- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Truer words were never spoken.

Harry K

[Harry K]

so you disagree with all the surveys and studies?

> >Now put up the straw man about talking to the passengers.  That also
> >distracts but not ot the same extent and at least there is more than
> >just _you_ paying some attention to what is happening on the road.
>
> Nonsense..  When I ride with my grandkids they aren't the least bit
> interested in what's happening on the road...  not any more then when
> I'm talking to them on the phone..
>
> >Fact:  CP use is causing accidents.  Fact:  NTSB is advocating a total
> >ban on drivers using them in any fashion.
>
> ...and banning handsfree devices it totally unenforceable..
>
>

Exactly. Until they figure out a way to disable the phone in the
driver's seat.

Harry K

[Steve]

Any "study" that says talking in a car via handsfree is more
distracting than talking to my grandkids is bullshit.

>> >Now put up the straw man about talking to the passengers.  That also
>> >distracts but not ot the same extent and at least there is more than
>> >just _you_ paying some attention to what is happening on the road.
>>
>> Nonsense..  When I ride with my grandkids they aren't the least bit
>> interested in what's happening on the road...  not any more then when
>> I'm talking to them on the phone..
>>
>> >Fact:  CP use is causing accidents.  Fact:  NTSB is advocating a total
>> >ban on drivers using them in any fashion.

Blah, blah, blah...

>> ...and banning handsfree devices it totally unenforceable..
>>
>>
>
>Exactly. Until they figure out a way to disable the phone in the
>driver's seat.

Never happen... but even so, my phone works quite nicely for me while
in my briefcase on the back seat or even back in the truck bed.

>Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 16, 3:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:53:02 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>

De Nile is a river in Egypt and it also has no effect on reality.

> >> >Now put up the straw man about talking to the passengers.  That also
> >> >distracts but not ot the same extent and at least there is more than
> >> >just _you_ paying some attention to what is happening on the road.
>
> >> Nonsense..  When I ride with my grandkids they aren't the least bit
> >> interested in what's happening on the road...  not any more then when
> >> I'm talking to them on the phone..
>
> >> >Fact:  CP use is causing accidents.  Fact:  NTSB is advocating a total
> >> >ban on drivers using them in any fashion.
>
> Blah, blah, blah...
>

So you have nothing but denial to offer.

> >> ...and banning handsfree devices it totally unenforceable..
>
> >Exactly. Until they figure out a way to disable the phone  in the
> >driver's seat.
>
> Never happen...  but even so, my phone works quite nicely for me while
> in my briefcase on the back seat or even back in the truck bed.
>

Another reason why disabling the phone is probably impossible. I had
already considered it.

Harry K

[Jordon]

Rights are given to us in the Constitution. I suppose you believe
that the "right to travel" means, by any method imaginable? You can
walk, but you can't jaywalk. You can ride a bike, unless it's on the
freeway. You can ride a horse, unless it craps on my lawn. You can
fly a plane, provided you're qualified, and not just because you
think you're qualified.

Oh, wait... you're the anarchist aren't you? You're the guy that
thinks you have a right to get on a plane with firearms and box
knives. Your fundamental belief of how our society should operate
turns the United States into a 3rd world country. Life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness are three separate things, and while the one
in the middle may get stronger for you, the two on the ends get
weaker for me. For the sake of YOUR liberty you get to infringe on MY
life and the pursuit of MY happiness? The three must be in balance
for you and me.

>>> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving
>>> and forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a
>>> problem... no more moral outrage, less power for government,
>>> and ultimately less enjoyment for busy body control feaks. And
>>> most of all, no revenue stream for those in and close to
>>> government, those who participate in the various rackets.
>
>> So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack
>> Daniels while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry
>> about picking up the pieces after the deaths? And extend that
>> right to the drivers piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?
>> Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.
>
> Non-responsive emotional crap. Tell me, how is it different to
> the person injured when it caused by a drunk driver vs. a soccer
> mom who just couldn't be bothered to drive well?

It's not, to the person that's injured. But you seem to be ignoring a
vast amount of data that shows that when you take the bottle out of
the hands of the driver, deaths associated with drunken driving go
down.

It ain't your great grandfathers country anymore. What worked in the
wild west doesn't so work so well with 307,000,000 people, which is
280,000,000 more than there was in 1850.

Do you yearn for the days of the old west? Dodge City 1879 maybe?

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/

[realitytrucker]

On Dec 14, 6:01 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:03:50 -0800 (PST), liberal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Dec 14, 2:23 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>
> >> <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 14, 5:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> >> >> telephone usage.  I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> >> >> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.
>
> >> > Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
> >> >cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
> >> >charges could then br

> >> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> >> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>

> >After an accident?????? Especially if an injury or death is involved.
> >Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.
>
> http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html

> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
> and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
> investigations

A major accident...or maybe any accident with serious injuries and/or
fatalties....I don't see a problem with a warrant being issued. It's
done every day in this country.

[Brent]

WRONG. We are born with our rights. The USC does not grant us
anything, it calls out some (but not all) of our rights to
explicitly prevent government from taking them. Which hasn't worked
since all that remains intact for all effective purposes is
amendment #3.

>I suppose you believe
> that the "right to travel" means, by any method imaginable? You can
> walk, but you can't jaywalk. You can ride a bike, unless it's on the
> freeway. You can ride a horse, unless it craps on my lawn. You can
> fly a plane, provided you're qualified, and not just because you
> think you're qualified.

Non responsive.

> Oh, wait... you're the anarchist aren't you? You're the guy that
> thinks you have a right to get on a plane with firearms and box
> knives. Your fundamental belief of how our society should operate
> turns the United States into a 3rd world country. Life, liberty and
> the pursuit of happiness are three separate things, and while the one
> in the middle may get stronger for you, the two on the ends get
> weaker for me. For the sake of YOUR liberty you get to infringe on MY
> life and the pursuit of MY happiness? The three must be in balance
> for you and me.

Non-responsive. BTW, 3rd world countries are what they are because
they are typically centrally mannaged by a group of criminals and
there is no protection of the rights of the people. In other words,
what the USA has become. Essentially as a nation the USA is coasting
on credit from its past productive years. When that runs out, third
world country.

It's funny how your happiness is based on taking away my rights, my
property, my labor, and anything else you can manage to have the
government steal from me for your benefit. How about you not
infringing on MY happiness by leaving me alone?

>>>> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving
>>>> and forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a
>>>> problem... no more moral outrage, less power for government,
>>>> and ultimately less enjoyment for busy body control feaks. And
>>>> most of all, no revenue stream for those in and close to
>>>> government, those who participate in the various rackets.
>>
>>> So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack
>>> Daniels while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry
>>> about picking up the pieces after the deaths? And extend that
>>> right to the drivers piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?
>>> Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.
>>
>> Non-responsive emotional crap. Tell me, how is it different to
>> the person injured when it caused by a drunk driver vs. a soccer
>> mom who just couldn't be bothered to drive well?

> It's not, to the person that's injured.

BINGO. You have conceded the debate right there. It doesn't matter
why the other driver was in the wrong lane, blew the red signal, or
what have you to the person injured.

> But you seem to be ignoring a
> vast amount of data that shows that when you take the bottle out of
> the hands of the driver, deaths associated with drunken driving go
> down.

So does taking the stupid out, but heaven forbid taking teenagers
for a drive at the track or the autocross so they can figure out the
limits of cars before hitting the streets. No... just scare them so
they won't try... then they find the limits on the street and get
killed or kill someone else.

> It ain't your great grandfathers country anymore. What worked in the
> wild west doesn't so work so well with 307,000,000 people, which is
> 280,000,000 more than there was in 1850.

Your kind didn't think it worked in 1850 either. Back then overt
slavery was the way the central planners 'took care of' people for
their own good in this country.

Freedom is the only thing that can work with ever increasing numbers
because freedom doesn't rely on institutions, force, etc.

> Do you yearn for the days of the old west? Dodge City 1879 maybe?

> http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/

The "wild west" was safer than the cities back east crime wise, that
is in reality, as opposed to TV and comic books.

[Steve]

<chuckle> Merely my way of saying that I believe that what the NTSB
advocates in this regard is nonsense.

>> >> ...and banning handsfree devices it totally unenforceable..
>>
>> >Exactly. Until they figure out a way to disable the phone  in the
>> >driver's seat.
>>
>> Never happen...  but even so, my phone works quite nicely for me while
>> in my briefcase on the back seat or even back in the truck bed.
>>
>
>Another reason why disabling the phone is probably impossible. I had
>already considered it.

...and yet you made the claim...

>Harry K

[Steve]

A warrant requires probable cause. Any good judge will demand
something that indicates the warrant might return something of value.

[Jordon]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights? Can I have some of what
you're smoking?

>>I suppose you believe
>> that the "right to travel" means, by any method imaginable? You
>> can walk, but you can't jaywalk. You can ride a bike, unless
>> it's on the freeway. You can ride a horse, unless it craps on
>> my lawn. You can fly a plane, provided you're qualified, and
>> not just because you think you're qualified.
>
> Non responsive.

What's up with this "non responsive" shit? If I change two words
does it become responsive? Do you believe that the "right to

travel" means, by any method imaginable?

You see, that's how conversations work. You say something. I say
something and maybe ask a question. You answer the question and
follow it up by saying something. It's a back and forth thing.

>> Oh, wait... you're the anarchist aren't you? You're the guy
>> that thinks you have a right to get on a plane with firearms
>> and box knives. Your fundamental belief of how our society
>> should operate turns the United States into a 3rd world
>> country. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are three
>> separate things, and while the one in the middle may get
>> stronger for you, the two on the ends get weaker for me. For
>> the sake of YOUR liberty you get to infringe on MY life and the
>> pursuit of MY happiness? The three must be in balance for you
>> and me.
>
> Non-responsive. BTW, 3rd world countries are what they are
> because they are typically centrally mannaged by a group of
> criminals and there is no protection of the rights of the
> people. In other words, what the USA has become. Essentially as
> a nation the USA is coasting on credit from its past productive
> years. When that runs out, third world country.
>
> It's funny how your happiness is based on taking away my rights,
> my property, my labor, and anything else you can manage to have
> the government steal from me for your benefit. How about you not
> infringing on MY happiness by leaving me alone?

The definition of "rights" aside, where have I ever mentioned that
I want your property, labor or anything else?

>>>>> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving
>>>>> and forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's
>>>>> a problem... no more moral outrage, less power for
>>>>> government, and ultimately less enjoyment for busy body
>>>>> control feaks. And most of all, no revenue stream for those
>>>>> in and close to government, those who participate in the
>>>>> various rackets.
>>>
>>>> So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack
>>>> Daniels while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry
>>>> about picking up the pieces after the deaths? And extend that
>>>> right to the drivers piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?
>>>> Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.
>>>
>>> Non-responsive emotional crap. Tell me, how is it different to
>>> the person injured when it caused by a drunk driver vs. a
>>> soccer mom who just couldn't be bothered to drive well?
>
>> It's not, to the person that's injured.
>
> BINGO. You have conceded the debate right there. It doesn't
> matter why the other driver was in the wrong lane, blew the red
> signal, or what have you to the person injured.

I have done no such thing. The only thing you can think about is
punishing the offender. You seem to place no importance in trying
to prevent the injury in the first place.

>> But you seem to be ignoring a
>> vast amount of data that shows that when you take the bottle
>> out of the hands of the driver, deaths associated with drunken
>> driving go down.
>
> So does taking the stupid out, but heaven forbid taking
> teenagers for a drive at the track or the autocross so they can
> figure out the limits of cars before hitting the streets. No...
> just scare them so they won't try... then they find the limits
> on the street and get killed or kill someone else.

So you agree that removing the bottle from the drivers hands lowers
alcohol related deaths. Cool. But what does taking teenagers to the
race track have to do with drunk driving? Not that I disagree with
the concept. It's a great idea. You want to hand them a bottle of
Jack while they're doing it?

>> It ain't your great grandfathers country anymore. What worked
>> in the wild west doesn't so work so well with 307,000,000
>> people, which is 280,000,000 more than there was in 1850.
>
> Your kind didn't think it worked in 1850 either.

My kind didn't think what worked in 1850? Considering that I just
said: "what worked then doesn't work now", pretty much means that I
consider things worked then. You're not too good with the whole
logic thing, are you?

> Back then overt
> slavery was the way the central planners 'took care of' people
> for their own good in this country.

You're beginning to ramble. Slavery was to "take care of" people
for their own good? I thought it was for extra cheap labor that you
could always count on, because they were your property.

> Freedom is the only thing that can work with ever increasing
> numbers because freedom doesn't rely on institutions, force,
> etc.

The word freedom by itself doesn't mean anything. You need other
words in there to describe what you're free from or free to do.

[Brent]

It's clear you have absolutely no understanding what so ever.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."

Can you figure out from where our rights come from now?

>>>I suppose you believe
>>> that the "right to travel" means, by any method imaginable? You
>>> can walk, but you can't jaywalk. You can ride a bike, unless
>>> it's on the freeway. You can ride a horse, unless it craps on
>>> my lawn. You can fly a plane, provided you're qualified, and
>>> not just because you think you're qualified.

>> Non responsive.

> What's up with this "non responsive" shit? If I change two words
> does it become responsive? Do you believe that the "right to
> travel" means, by any method imaginable?

It's non-responsive for the same reason the above is non-responsive. You
are jabbering emotionally trying to shove words in my mouth.

> You see, that's how conversations work. You say something. I say
> something and maybe ask a question. You answer the question and
> follow it up by saying something. It's a back and forth thing.

You have to say something meaningful, not fearful emotional
jibber-jabber.

>>> Oh, wait... you're the anarchist aren't you? You're the guy
>>> that thinks you have a right to get on a plane with firearms
>>> and box knives. Your fundamental belief of how our society
>>> should operate turns the United States into a 3rd world
>>> country. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are three
>>> separate things, and while the one in the middle may get
>>> stronger for you, the two on the ends get weaker for me. For
>>> the sake of YOUR liberty you get to infringe on MY life and the
>>> pursuit of MY happiness? The three must be in balance for you
>>> and me.

>> Non-responsive. BTW, 3rd world countries are what they are
>> because they are typically centrally mannaged by a group of
>> criminals and there is no protection of the rights of the
>> people. In other words, what the USA has become. Essentially as
>> a nation the USA is coasting on credit from its past productive
>> years. When that runs out, third world country.
>>
>> It's funny how your happiness is based on taking away my rights,
>> my property, my labor, and anything else you can manage to have
>> the government steal from me for your benefit. How about you not
>> infringing on MY happiness by leaving me alone?

> The definition of "rights" aside, where have I ever mentioned that
> I want your property, labor or anything else?

The whole point is the definition of rights. When you declare that
rights come from the government a number of things come along with that
because they go together. For instance, the premise that driving is a
government granted privilege has resulted in a variety of laws that
deprive people of their property.

Besides, the premise that the state grants rights is what is ultimately
behind the welfare state, the warfare state, and countless laws, taxes,
etc and so on. It is this false premise that is the root of a system of
theft.

This article is something I read today:
http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano33.1.html
Maybe it will help you understand.

>>>>>> I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving
>>>>>> and forget about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's
>>>>>> a problem... no more moral outrage, less power for
>>>>>> government, and ultimately less enjoyment for busy body
>>>>>> control feaks. And most of all, no revenue stream for those
>>>>>> in and close to government, those who participate in the
>>>>>> various rackets.
>>>>
>>>>> So we should just let everyone that wants to, swill Jack
>>>>> Daniels while while doing 70 down the interstate and worry
>>>>> about picking up the pieces after the deaths? And extend that
>>>>> right to the drivers piloting 40 tons of tractor-trailer too?
>>>>> Cool. Anarchy. Somalia here we come.
>>>>
>>>> Non-responsive emotional crap. Tell me, how is it different to
>>>> the person injured when it caused by a drunk driver vs. a
>>>> soccer mom who just couldn't be bothered to drive well?
>>
>>> It's not, to the person that's injured.
>>
>> BINGO. You have conceded the debate right there. It doesn't
>> matter why the other driver was in the wrong lane, blew the red
>> signal, or what have you to the person injured.

> I have done no such thing.

You accepted my core argument, that there is no difference to the person
who is harmed. Just like those 'buzzed driving is drunk driving' PSA's
make clear. A person isn't any better if the driver is only 'buzzed' and
not 'drunk'. Same with any other condition substituted for 'buzzed'.

> The only thing you can think about is
> punishing the offender. You seem to place no importance in trying
> to prevent the injury in the first place.

Once again you decide what I think. I want to prevent bad driving that
leads to collisions. I don't see why those like yourself make a big deal
about a couple of particular contributing factors to bad driving. I
really don't care if someone has a .08 or .88 BAC if they are driving
well. I don't care if they are watching TV, talking on the phone, and
smoking a cigar at the same time while driving if they drive well. If
they drive like crap, that's what I am concerned about. It makes little
difference to me if I am hurt or my property damaged because the bad
driver was A but not B.

It is absurd that we have a culture where I am not allowed to be angry
at someone who just screws up and plows into my car if he's sober. It's
just a 'mistake'.... "insurance will take care of it". A total disregard
for me, my time, my property. But suddenly if that driver is drunk...
now he has to go to prison. WTF? So what if he is drunk or not, I want
restitution. I want to be made whole again.

>>> But you seem to be ignoring a
>>> vast amount of data that shows that when you take the bottle
>>> out of the hands of the driver, deaths associated with drunken
>>> driving go down.

>> So does taking the stupid out, but heaven forbid taking
>> teenagers for a drive at the track or the autocross so they can
>> figure out the limits of cars before hitting the streets. No...
>> just scare them so they won't try... then they find the limits
>> on the street and get killed or kill someone else.

> So you agree that removing the bottle from the drivers hands lowers
> alcohol related deaths. Cool. But what does taking teenagers to the
> race track have to do with drunk driving? Not that I disagree with
> the concept. It's a great idea. You want to hand them a bottle of
> Jack while they're doing it?

You're just not capable of the level of conceptual thought required
here. Your laws, your fear based punishment system isn't doing anything
to take "the bottle from the drivers' hands". Education might be working
but the fear based system isn't doing any better than it does with the
blood on the highway films in drivers' ed. Take the stupid out of
driving instead of being all damned concerned about one or two
contributing factors. The contributing factors take care of themselves
if the real education is done in the first place.

>>> It ain't your great grandfathers country anymore. What worked
>>> in the wild west doesn't so work so well with 307,000,000
>>> people, which is 280,000,000 more than there was in 1850.
>>
>> Your kind didn't think it worked in 1850 either.

> My kind didn't think what worked in 1850? Considering that I just
> said: "what worked then doesn't work now", pretty much means that I
> consider things worked then. You're not too good with the whole
> logic thing, are you?

Wow. You make declarations like that the government determines our
rights and then you can't even grasp the consequences of that. Did you
read the part about slavery in the USC?

>> Back then overt
>> slavery was the way the central planners 'took care of' people
>> for their own good in this country.

> You're beginning to ramble. Slavery was to "take care of" people
> for their own good? I thought it was for extra cheap labor that you
> could always count on, because they were your property.

I'm not here to fill in all the blanks from your education. Yes, there
is a parental aspect to slavery. A belief that those who are enslaved
cannot care for themselves and enslaving them is doing them a favor.

>> Freedom is the only thing that can work with ever increasing
>> numbers because freedom doesn't rely on institutions, force,
>> etc.

> The word freedom by itself doesn't mean anything. You need other
> words in there to describe what you're free from or free to do.

*face palm* No, I do not. The meaning is clear. The force based system
is inherently unscalable leading to ever greater misery. People need to
be free, to have their rights from creation if we are to live in harmony
in such great numbers.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 15, 9:42 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> It doesn't stop the DUIs and that is a _very_expensive process.
> Repeat DUI offenders are common in jails.

What a stupid thing to say. Murder laws and rape laws don't totally
eliminate murder and rape either. But they reduce the number of those
crimes.

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 16, 4:34 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> A warrant requires probable cause.  Any good judge will demand
> something that indicates the warrant might return something of value

You see texting drivers all the time. Every time there is a crash,
cell phones should be suspected just like booze is.

[Harry K]

> >Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just what "claim" would that be? I made a suggestion somewhiat
tongue in cheek.

Harry K

[Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals]

On Dec 16, 4:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >
> Any "study" that says talking in a car via handsfree is more
> distracting than talking to my grandkids is bullshit.
>

They prolly are equally distracting but there is no way to enforce a
ban on drivers talking to passengers. We do what we can.

[Harry K]

On Dec 16, 5:09 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2011-12-16, Jordon <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brent wrote:
>

> >> On 2011-12-16, Jordon <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Brent wrote:
>

> >>>> On 2011-12-15, Jordon <seattle...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Brent wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> >>> Rights are given to us in the Constitution.
>
> >> WRONG. We are born with our rights. The USC does not grant us
> >> anything, it calls out some (but not all) of our rights to
> >> explicitly prevent government from taking them. Which hasn't
> >> worked since all that remains intact for all effective purposes
> >> is amendment #3.
>
> > The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights? Can I have some of what
> > you're smoking?
>

> It's clear you have absolutely no understanding what so ever.http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness."
>
> Can you figure out from where our rights come from now?
>

I sure can. They didn't come from that. This country is based on the
Constitution. Or are you now going to use that quote to claim the
country is based on Christianity?

Harry K

<snip>

Harry K

[Harry K]

> something that indicates the warrant might return something of value.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Cause of accident may have been due to inattention while using the
Cell Phone"

Judge: "Warrant is granted"

Keep straining. You haven't posted anything to prevent the
investigators from getting the CP record yet.

Harry K

[Brent]

Harry, our rights do not come from a man or men or a piece of paper. To
say they do means that you effectively do not have any rights because
paper decays and men can change their minds.

By relying on a grant for your rights you rely on men with power
honoring that grant. What are you going to do if those that run the
government just openly declare you have no rights? That they have
reinterpeted the constitution and in order to keep you safe from the
terrorists you have no rights. None. Supreme court agrees, The Bill of
Rights is revoked due to a new interpetation of "insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence" What then Harry? They
revoked the Bill of Rights openly. Or if you prefer a constitutional
convention was called and there is a new constitution that does not
recognize any rights of man. Do you just shrug and accept your new
status as rightless person that continues to live only by grant of the
government? Do you cheer on the government as it uses its military to
kill anyone that opposes this open repeal of the Bill of Rights?

What do you do? The paper has been legally revoked by men who hold
power. Did your rights go with it? Are you now their property or are
you still a human being with your own mind and self ownership?

Furthermore what about other people, people who live in countries where
there is no recognition of rights, is acceptable to kill or ensalve them
because they aren't americans and thus have no constitution, no men or
piece of paper that grants them rights?

[Steve]

<ROTFL> Judge, the guy may have the murder weapon in his home so
we'd like a search warrant... no, we have no reason to believe he has
the murder weapon but we want to make sure...

>Judge: "Warrant is granted"

<LOL> Not without evidence of a cell phone.. which they also won't
get without a warrant.

[Steve]

In case you hadn't noticed.. I'm 100% behind outlawing texting while
driving.. I'm 100% behind outlawing non-handsfree phoning... those
would also be enforceable laws.

[Steve]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:21:06 -0800 (PST), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -

GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:

,,,and there's no way that handsfree cellphone devices will ever be
banned...

[Steve]

<LOL> ...and now you run away...

>Harry K

[Harry K]

> >Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I have _been_ in law enforcement and I asssure you that your example
of the gun _would_ end in a warrant.

You can keep thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts but the reality is that
the cops _are_ getting the phones. Just read accident reports inthe
papers and you will _see_ it mentioned that "cell phone records show
that (name) was texting jusst moments before the crash" I saw one
just the other day in the local paper.

Are they getting them through warrants? I don't know, and I don't
care, but getting them they are.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 16, 10:19 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> piece of paper that grants them rights?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

<snip> Brent BS often read.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 17, 1:54 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:13:38 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>

??? Are you reading impaired. How do you get "running away" out of
that?

I asked a plain questsion. What "claim" did I make. I understand
your inability to answer the question but "running away"?

Here it is a again. Just what "claim" did I make?

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 17, 1:54 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

You hope. Wanna bet that if they can find a way, they will do it?

Harry K

[Brent]

On 2011-12-17, Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Can't form an argument Harry? Hardly surprising. What are you going to
do when men tear up that piece of paper you claim our rights come from?
Are you just going to shrug and accept that you don't have any rights
because the piece of paper is gone?

[Ray Fischer]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K

>>No, you are telling how your _think_ it is. They are getting the
>>records locked. How they are doing it is not stated.
>
>Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
>warrant..

Is that what they told you?

How cute that you believe it.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Steve]

There's more than enough difficulty getting non-hand-held cell phones
banned while driving... Congress critters aren't about to piss off
that many people...

[Steve]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:13:56 -0800 (PST), Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Steve]

<ROTFLMAO> You obviously know nothing about law enforcement..

>You can keep thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts but the reality is that
>the cops _are_ getting the phones. Just read accident reports inthe
>papers and you will _see_ it mentioned that "cell phone records show
>that (name) was texting jusst moments before the crash" I saw one
>just the other day in the local paper.

Your fantasies don't count, you know...

[Steve]

Your nonsense claim about "they figure out a way to disable the phone

[Harry K]

So you think the reports of CP use just prior to accidents are
fantasies? Condisering soem ofhe other stuff you "believe" I suspect
so. Note: "Believe" in the "believe without any evidence" sense.

Harry K

[Harry K]

>  in the driver's seat."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

As suspected you have a comprehension problem. In no way can you
construe that to be a claim. Keep straining.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 17, 3:28 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> that many people...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

How do you breath with your head buried that far in the sand?

Harry K

[Alan Baker]

In article <jcg3ce$a37$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jordon <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:

> Brent wrote:
>

> > On 2011-12-15, Jordon <seatt...@REMOVE-THISmail.com> wrote:
> >> Brent wrote:
> >>

> >>> On 2011-12-15, Mrs Irish Mike <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> On Dec 14, 8:57 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the
> >>>>> cellphone records" as a stardard practice.  How they are
> >>>>> getting it done is not explained.
> >>>>>
> >>>>

> Rights are given to us in the Constitution. I suppose you believe

> that the "right to travel" means, by any method imaginable? You can
> walk, but you can't jaywalk. You can ride a bike, unless it's on the
> freeway. You can ride a horse, unless it craps on my lawn. You can
> fly a plane, provided you're qualified, and not just because you
> think you're qualified.

I'm sorry, but your basic premise is incorrect.

Your constitution acknowledges that rights are not granted by it, but
merely that some in particular have been recognized by it as existing...

...and it explicitly states that the rights it recognizes are not the
only ones that exist.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Harry K]

> because the piece of paper is gone?  - Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry but I am not paranoid enough to play in your sandbox...very few
people are.

Harry K

[Steve]

That's from a fool who thinks the US Congress is going to pass an
unenforceable law that is likely to really piss of the majority of US
voters.

[Steve]

Nope.. if someone was seen using a cellphone it would be easy to get
a warrant, and it's quite easy to see someone texting or with a
cellphone to their ear. But lacking some sort of probable cause,
there will be no warrant.

In the case of someone using a cellphone via handsfree speakerphone,
there would most likely not be any such probable cause.

> Condisering soem ofhe other stuff you "believe" I suspect
>so. Note: "Believe" in the "believe without any evidence" sense.

<LOL> That's from the fool that claims that cops can get a warrant to
search a person's home because there "might be a murder weapon
although "we have no reason to believe he has the murder weapon but we
want to make sure..."


>Harry K

[Steve]

<shaking my head and smiling as I watch the fool run away from his own
words.>

[Harry K]

On Dec 17, 1:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> rfisc...@sonic.net  |    Goethe

He does seem to be rather 'cognition challenged'

Harry K

[Steve]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:15:10 -0800 (PST), Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 1:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Steve  <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>> >>No, you are telling how your _think_ it is.  They are getting the
>> >>records locked.  How they are doing it is not stated.
>>
>> >Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
>> >warrant..
>>
>> Is that what they told you?
>>
>> How cute that you believe it.
>>

>He does seem to be rather 'cognition challenged'
>
>Harry K

<BIG CHUCKLES>

[Harry K]

On Dec 18, 3:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:15:10 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 1:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Steve  <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> >> >>No, you are telling how your _think_ it is.  They are getting the
> >> >>records locked.  How they are doing it is not stated.
>
> >> >Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
> >> >warrant..
>
> >> Is that what they told you?
>
> >> How cute that you believe it.
>
> >He does seem to be rather 'cognition challenged'
>
> >Harry K
>
> <BIG CHUCKLES>
>
> http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
>
> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
> and therefore can't be released without a warrant,

And have I said anything different?

in a case that may
> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal

> investigations- Hide quoted text -
>

Care to give a cite to that unlikely part?

You keep ignoring the fact that cops _are_ getting the data. By
warrant or some other means has no effect on that reality.

Your "warrant, warrant, warrat" was dead with my first reply to it.

Again, Quite before dyou get even further behind.

Harry K

[Brent]

Oh poor Harry, can't form an argument, can't answer the question. Harry,
what are you going to do when your loving government openly denies a
grant of rights?

If government grants rights, it can take them away. What do you become
when it does? What are those people who don't have a grant of rights
from their rulers, are they even human without the grant?

If a person is born in a place where there is no government, does he
have rights?

[Steve]

<LOL> You keep ignoring the fact that any warrants issued were
preceded with probable cause and that without probably cause there
would be no phone records checked...

...and in the case of hands free devices, there would be no probable
cause..

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:c2gre751mt299gfo7...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:39 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

[snip...]

> Nope.. if someone was seen using a cellphone it would be easy to get
> a warrant, and it's quite easy to see someone texting or with a
> cellphone to their ear. But lacking some sort of probable cause,
> there will be no warrant.
>

I agree.

What if I have it on speakerphone, not against my ear but it's a phone that
opens like a clamshell and I have it closed and clipped to the seatbelt
while talking? What if I have a wired handfree earpiece? What if I use a
Bluetooth wireless earpiece? What if the vehicle has one of those wireless
attachments that allows cellphone audio through the car receiver? (Bad idea
though, if it's an RF modulator anyone, including the police, can receive
the call on the radio station so then no privacy either.) Am I actually
"using" the phone if I am not actively talking though the handsfree device?
So then what if I see the police car approaching in the rearview mirror and
tell the person I am talking to I'll call back later (so when the police car
is close enough I am no longer talking on the phone)?

> In the case of someone using a cellphone via handsfree speakerphone,
> there would most likely not be any such probable cause.
>

Also, using the handsfree earpiece on the right ear (passenger side) would
make it a lot harder to see (as the police car follows or passes on the
left).

Not advocating unsafe cellphone use, however, I just totally disagree with a
federal ban.

[Steve]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:31:16 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
>news:c2gre751mt299gfo7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:39 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip...]
>
>> Nope.. if someone was seen using a cellphone it would be easy to get
>> a warrant, and it's quite easy to see someone texting or with a
>> cellphone to their ear. But lacking some sort of probable cause,
>> there will be no warrant.
>>
>I agree.
>
>What if I have it on speakerphone, not against my ear but it's a phone that
>opens like a clamshell and I have it closed and clipped to the seatbelt
>while talking? What if I have a wired handfree earpiece? What if I use a
>Bluetooth wireless earpiece? What if the vehicle has one of those wireless
>attachments that allows cellphone audio through the car receiver?

We both have them.. they're wifi.

[Ray Fischer]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:15:10 -0800 (PST), Harry K
><turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 17, 1:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Steve  <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>>> >>No, you are telling how your _think_ it is.  They are getting the
>>> >>records locked.  How they are doing it is not stated.
>>>
>>> >Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
>>> >warrant..
>>>
>>> Is that what they told you?
>>>
>>> How cute that you believe it.
>>>
>
>>He does seem to be rather 'cognition challenged'
>

><BIG CHUCKLES>

Sucker.

>http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
>
>A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private

In place of asking a judge for a warrant, federal and increasingly
state and local law enforcement only need an administrative
subpoena in order to compel telecommunications companies to hand
over your private information. When testifying before Congress,
Ava Cooper Davis, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Special Intelligence at the DEA, explained how her agency obtains
these records:

When a criminal investigator acquires a telephone number for which
the subscriber information is not immediately known, the
investigator must first identify the telephone company (e.g.,
Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, etc.) that owns or controls that number.
Once the telephone company is identified, the investigator will
obtain an administrative subpoena, requesting subscriber name,
billing information, and telephone toll records for a specific
time frame.
http://www.privacysos.org/admin_subpoenas

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[realitytrucker]

On Dec 17, 3:54 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:29:02 -0800 (PST), Harry K

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 16, 3:34 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:54:39 -0800 (PST), realitytrucker
>
> >> <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 14, 6:01 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:03:50 -0800 (PST), liberal
>
> >> >> <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >On Dec 14, 2:23 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>
> >> >> >> <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Dec 14, 5:45 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> >> >> >> >> telephone usage.  I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> >> >> >> >> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.
>
> >> >> >> > Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
> >> >> >> >cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
> >> >> >> >charges could then br

> >> >> >> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> >> >> >> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>

> >> >> >After an accident?????? Especially if an injury or death is involved.
> >> >> >Damn, you must have studied hard to be so stupid.
>

> >> >>http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
> >> >> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private

> >> >> and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may

> >> >> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal

> >> >> investigations
>
> >> >A major accident...or maybe any accident with serious injuries and/or
> >> >fatalties....I don't see a problem with a warrant being issued.  It's
> >> >done every day in this country.
>
> >> A warrant requires probable cause.  Any good judge will demand

> >> something that indicates the warrant might return something of value.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>

> >"Cause of accident may have been due to inattention while using the
> >Cell Phone"
>
> <ROTFL>   Judge, the guy may have the murder weapon in his home so
> we'd like a search warrant...  no, we have no reason to believe he has
> the murder weapon but we want to make sure...
>
> >Judge:  "Warrant is granted"
>
> <LOL>  Not without evidence of a cell phone..  which they also won't
> get without a warrant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Keep straining.  You haven't posted anything to prevent the
> >investigators from getting the CP record yet.
>
> >Harry K

"Not without evidence of a cell phone"????

And if an accident were caused by someone using a cell phone while
driving what do you think they'd find in the wreckage?

[realitytrucker]

> Judge:  "Warrant is granted"

>
> Keep straining.  You haven't posted anything to prevent the
> investigators from getting the CP record yet.
>
> Harry K

Thx, Harry.

ya see how easy it would be, Steveo?

[Harry K]

> rfisc...@sonic.net  |    Goethe- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks. It is pointless to point out facts to the brain damaged
though.

Harry K

[Harry K]

And jsut where did I ever say different. BTW you might do a bit of
study on what PC is. Sufficient would be "witness (name) said he saw
the driver drop his phone just prior the collision".

> ...and in the case of hands free devices, there would be no probable
> cause..

???what a wild leap. Hands free does nto preclude talking on the
phone and even it being legal does not eliminate it as a 'proximate
cause' (another bit of legalese you will be unfamiliar with) of the
accident.

Hands free doesn't even keep the driver from texting.

reread the following - maybe it will sink in.

>
>
> >Your "warrant, warrant, warrat" was dead with my first reply to it.
>
> >Again,  Quite before dyou get even further behind.
>

> >Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 18, 11:31 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Steve" <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:c2gre751mt299gfo7...@4ax.com...> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:39 -0800 (PST), Harry K

Same here but I am afreaid they will do it if a way is found. I am
already seeing editorials in the newspaper supporting the idea.

Probable Cause is not some 'hard to get' thing. All it takes is for
the cop to state a plausible reason for suspecting the driver was
using the cp at the time. "Judge, the day was clear, traffic sparse
and (name) rear ended the other vehicle. I suspect it was caused by
inattention due to using the CP"

Harry K
Harry K

[Steve]

<LOL> @ privacysos.org

Leftists getting their "facts" from leftist bloggers always makes me
laugh...

>> --
>> Ray Fischer         |  None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
>> rfisc...@sonic.net  |    Goethe- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Thanks. It is pointless to point out facts to the brain damaged
>though.
>
>Harry K

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private

and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal

investigations.

[Steve]

That would probably be probable cause, however seeing the person's
lips move would not.

>> ...and in the case of hands free devices, there would be no probable
>> cause..
>
>???what a wild leap. Hands free does nto preclude talking on the
>phone and even it being legal does not eliminate it as a 'proximate
>cause' (another bit of legalese you will be unfamiliar with) of the
>accident.

<ROTFL> ...as if you had any knowledge of things legal...

A warrant is required to search phone records. A warrant requires
probable cause. Banning my hands free phone use would be
unenforceable.

>Hands free doesn't even keep the driver from texting.

Texting is generally easier to spot..

[Steve]

<LOL> ....Probable cause requires considerably more than that..

[Steve]

Warrants are not easy to get...

[Steve]

In my case, a briefcase that would require a warrant to be opened.