Autonomous braking system to be required

[HeyBub]

In Europe, so says Popular Science.

"Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers want
them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will
require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency
braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles could soon
follow suit."

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous-braking-technology-all-commercial-vehicles-sold-next-year

You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the
children" politicians are in power.

[homme de la maison]

Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this
is actually a good idea.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:50:33 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
wrote:

Most? Citation needed for that story, mommy.

[homme de la maison]

Pull your head out of your ass and look around...you'll see what I mean.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:20:41 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>

I repeat, most? You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.

[WW]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:moGdnYL47ch4aofN...@earthlink.com...

I have been rear ended 3 times. Each time I was stopped at a red light. One
was a drunken driver. One was a young girl. One was a fellow in a hot rod
that was racing the engine and his foot slipped off of the clutch. So
maybe that could have stopped the drunk and the girl. WW

[Harry K]

On Aug 2, 2:57 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In Europe, so says Popular Science.
>
> "Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers want
> them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will
> require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency
> braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles could soon
> follow suit."
>

> http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous...

>
> You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the
> children" politicians are in power.

And there would be something bad about forcing people to maintain
reasonable following distances? Or to have the brakes activate becase
dipshits are too busy witht he phone to pay attention?

Harry K

[Harvey Specter]

And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers test.

[notbob]

On 2012-08-03, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

> I repeat, most? You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.

Screw the "assertion". The real issue is, what else will that AEB
system be doing. You can bet yer ass it will also be an Event Data
Recorder (EDR) that will be recording yer driving history, like how
fast you were going when you hit the brakes, etc. And who do you
think is behind this? The insurance companies, so they can use yer
own car's event data against you should you be in an accident in which
they might have to settle. In short, yer own car will be ratting you
out to the insurance companies. Most new cars already include one or
more EDRs in yer car, specially if you have ABS brakes. You think
it's not gonna get worse? This AEB thing is jes another pretense to
get even more sophisticated EDR mechanisms into yer car. Believe that!

nb

--
"Do you recognize me? No!
...cuz I don't work here"
Support labelling GMO foods
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[gpsman]

On Aug 3, 8:17 am, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> On 2012-08-03, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> > I repeat, most?  You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.
>
> Screw the "assertion".  The real issue is, what else will that AEB
> system be doing.  You can bet yer ass it will also be an Event Data
> Recorder (EDR) that will be recording yer driving history, like how
> fast you were going when you hit the brakes, etc.  And who do you
> think is behind this?  The insurance companies, so they can use yer
> own car's event data against you should you be in an accident in which
> they might have to settle.  In short, yer own car will be ratting you
> out to the insurance companies.  Most new cars already include one or
> more EDRs in yer car, specially if you have ABS brakes.  You think
> it's not gonna get worse?  This AEB thing is jes another pretense to
> get even more sophisticated EDR mechanisms into yer car.  Believe that!

Shhh! I hear the plaintive whine of the irresponsible motorist...
-----

- gpsman

[Gil]

That's 'big' of you. Just remember that probably some day you will be
over sixty and then we'll see how you feel about your statement then.
There are good and bad drivers in every age classification.

[gpsman]

On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>

Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task is
easily.... well, you can't fucking miss it unless you have no idea of
what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
greater than very likely.

All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
monologue the next/last time they motored.

It takes effort to concentrate on driving and take and maintain
"conscious control of the attentional spotlight". "I've got to get in
front of that truck" and "What's going to happen when I'm late this
time", etc., do not qualify as "driving-related" thought.

Then there are statistics: ~200M motorists -report to police- 6M
crashes per year.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig4_3.cfm
http://exchange.aaa.com/safety/roadway-safety/

"The societal cost of crashes is a staggering $164.2 billion annually,
nearly two and a half times greater than the $67.6 billion price tag
for congestion, according to a new report released today by AAA."
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2008/03/crashes-vs-congestion-whats-the-cost-to-society/

"In 2000, 5,211 people were killed and about 140,000 injured in
crashes involving large trucks, according to AAA's Foundation for
Traffic Safety, which analyzed 10,000 fatal car-truck accidents.

"<> Car drivers were to blame in 75 percent of the accidents, while
truckers were deemed responsible in the rest."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130212&page=1#.UBvMdPV_Wuk
-----

- gpsman

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:35:32 -0400, Harvey Specter <harvey....@suits.usa>
wrote:

...and the under fifty crowd who never learned.

[HeyBub]

notbob wrote:
> On 2012-08-03, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> I repeat, most? You're going to need some proof for such a wild
>> assertion.
>
> Screw the "assertion". The real issue is, what else will that AEB
> system be doing. You can bet yer ass it will also be an Event Data
> Recorder (EDR) that will be recording yer driving history, like how
> fast you were going when you hit the brakes, etc. And who do you
> think is behind this? The insurance companies, so they can use yer
> own car's event data against you should you be in an accident in which
> they might have to settle. In short, yer own car will be ratting you
> out to the insurance companies. Most new cars already include one or
> more EDRs in yer car, specially if you have ABS brakes. You think
> it's not gonna get worse? This AEB thing is jes another pretense to
> get even more sophisticated EDR mechanisms into yer car. Believe
> that!
>

I think you put the cart before the horse.

Auto makers put the EDR's in cars for their own purposes, not because such
was legislated and certainly not at the behest of the insurance companies.
It was the trial/plaintiff legal community that glommed on to the EDR data.

As for EDR's being a tool of the insurance companies, I suspect that an EDR
helps an insurance company about as often as it hurts. In a collision, for
example, a State Farm policy holder may be at fault when he hits an Allstate
policy holder. In the next accident, the blame is reversed. In the big
picture, the contents of an EDR is proabably a wash as far as insurance
goes.

[Harry K]

So your driving is so poor you don't want it recorded...got it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Aug 3, 4:35 am, Harvey Specter <harvey.spec...@suits.usa> wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 8:50 PM, homme de la maison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 08/02/2012 05:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> >> In Europe, so says Popular Science.
>
> >> "Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers
> >> want
> >> them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will
> >> require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency
> >> braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles
> >> could soon
> >> follow suit."
>

> >>http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous...

>
> >> You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the
> >> children" politicians are in power.
>
> > Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this
> > is actually a good idea.
>
> And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers test.

And what do you think your drivign ability will be when _you_ are over
60? As for accident record the worst group is the youths...which I
suspect you either are in or have just shortly left.

BTW 60 these days is a far pace from being what is considered "old".
I'll bet the statistics for age related accidents shows it begins at
around 70 or later.

Harry K

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Except that if they show blame, the insurance company doesn't get the
deductible from both parties. If they can pin some responsibility on each,
they get the deductible.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:08:49 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 2, 9:38�pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:20:41 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
>> wrote:
>> >On 08/02/2012 08:54 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:50:33 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
>> >>> twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this
>> >>> is actually a good idea.
>>
>> >> Most? �Citation needed for that story, mommy.
>>
>> >Pull your head out of your ass and look around...you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> I repeat, most? �You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.
>
>Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task is
>easily.... well, you can't fucking miss it unless you have no idea of
>what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
>greater than very likely.

OK, so give us a believable citation for that. Then one that shows that "not
fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)

>All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
>monologue the next/last time they motored.

<irrelevant bullshit snipped>

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Close. It's certainly a bathtub curve with the worst, those over 75, slightly
worse than the 16-20 group. The 20-24 group is about the same as the 70-74
group. The middle of the bathtub, from age 30 to age 70 is pretty flat at
about half that of the 20-24 group. It's kinda old data but if anything the
older people are likely doing better now.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1007/2/83596.0001.001.pdf

[The Daring Dufas]

I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^

TDD

[gpsman]

On Aug 3, 1:05 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>

wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:08:49 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:20:41 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 08/02/2012 08:54 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:50:33 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> >> >>> twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this
> >> >>> is actually a good idea.
>
> >> >> Most?  Citation needed for that story, mommy.
>
> >> >Pull your head out of your ass and look around...you'll see what I mean.
>
> >> I repeat, most?  You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.
>
> >Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task is
> >easily.... well, you can't fucking miss it unless you have no idea of
> >what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
> >greater than very likely.
>
> OK, so give us a believable citation for that.

"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI)."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturalistic+Driving+Study

> Then one that shows that "not
> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)

I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.

> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>
> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>

That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
-----

- gpsman

[homme de la maison]

LOL, you're an amusing dumbass!

If you hear rain on your roof and you look out the window and see that
it is in fact raining, do you still need to go to www.weather.gov for proof?

[denni...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Gil wrote:
> That's 'big' of you. Just remember that probably some day you will be
> over sixty and then we'll see how you feel about your statement then.
> There are good and bad drivers in every age classification.

Of course there are always SOME good drivers in every age group.

When does it make sense to stop letting ALL the drivers in a particular age group continue to drive, simply because SOME of them are still good drivers?

Apparently never, because their feewings will be hurt. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.

Just an aside, caring about someone else's feelings, or someone else's safety, is a liberal trait. Good conservatives always look out for #1.

Personally, I would hope that someone takes my keys away if I become a menace. I'll probably get very angry when it happens. I'm sure I won't like it, but I won't be in a position to make an objective decision about my ability to drive. I'll still fancy myself to be Dale Freaking Earnhardt Jr, even if I'm 85, blind in one eye, with no feeling in my right leg.

[denni...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
> I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
> because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
> vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
> government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
> on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^

If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.

[denni...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:20:28 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
> And there would be something bad about forcing people to maintain
> reasonable following distances? Or to have the brakes activate becase
> dipshits are too busy witht he phone to pay attention?

Much as it pains me to agree with you...

ANY new regulation these days is spun as an attack on your personal freedoms. It's all part of Barack Obama's master plan to control every aspect of your life and make you dependent on the government for everything from cradle to grave. It's a gateway to some other more nefarious attack on your personal freedoms. This is just a stepping stone to taking away all of your guns, and ending free speech, and then we'll all be praying to the East five times a day.

[Gil]

On 03/08/2012 3:17 PM, denni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Gil wrote:
>> That's 'big' of you. Just remember that probably some day you will be
>> over sixty and then we'll see how you feel about your statement then.
>> There are good and bad drivers in every age classification.
>
> Of course there are always SOME good drivers in every age group.
>
> When does it make sense to stop letting ALL the drivers in a particular age group continue to drive, simply because SOME of them are still good drivers?
>
> Apparently never, because their feewings will be hurt. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.
>

That's a stupid attitude. Loss of driving privileges should be based on
displayed performance, not on some perceived deficiency because someone
reaches a certain age. A hell of a lot twenty-year old drivers shouldn't
be on the road. Based on your comments I doubt you would recognize a
sixty-year old if you saw one. Probably at your age everyone over forty
looks 'old'.

> Just an aside, caring about someone else's feelings, or someone else's safety, is a liberal trait. Good conservatives always look out for #1.
>
> Personally, I would hope that someone takes my keys away if I become a menace.

I agree and it should be regardless of age. If you think you can drive
safely like Dale Earnhart used to on the track just because you're
young, then you are delusional.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

The average driver isn't crashing. Your logic isn't.

>> Then one that shows that "not
>> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>
>I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
>someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.

The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.

>> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
>> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>>
>> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>
>That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.

OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
(add list from above) while driving.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:18:49 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>

wrote:

>On 08/02/2012 09:38 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:20:41 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/02/2012 08:54 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:50:33 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/02/2012 05:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>> In Europe, so says Popular Science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers want
>>>>>> them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will
>>>>>> require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency
>>>>>> braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles could soon
>>>>>> follow suit."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous-braking-technology-all-commercial-vehicles-sold-next-year
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the
>>>>>> children" politicians are in power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
>>>>> twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this
>>>>> is actually a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Most? Citation needed for that story, mommy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pull your head out of your ass and look around...you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> I repeat, most? You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.
>>
>
>LOL, you're an amusing dumbass!

You changed your nym again, DumbShit? It would be good if you changed your
panties as often.

>If you hear rain on your roof and you look out the window and see that
>it is in fact raining, do you still need to go to www.weather.gov for proof?

When it's a lie, sure, I want proof. ...but liars like lies, don't you,
DumbShit.

[HeyBub]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Auto makers put the EDR's in cars for their own purposes, not
>> because such was legislated and certainly not at the behest of the
>> insurance companies. It was the trial/plaintiff legal community that
>> glommed on to the EDR data.
>>
>> As for EDR's being a tool of the insurance companies, I suspect that
>> an EDR helps an insurance company about as often as it hurts. In a
>> collision, for example, a State Farm policy holder may be at fault
>> when he hits an Allstate policy holder. In the next accident, the
>> blame is reversed. In the big picture, the contents of an EDR is
>> proabably a wash as far as insurance goes.
>>
> Except that if they show blame, the insurance company doesn't get the
> deductible from both parties. If they can pin some responsibility on
> each, they get the deductible.

You've got a good point. Still, I think the expense of subpoenaing the
device, removing it from the wrecked car, having it read and decoded by an
expert, and so on, would be more expensive than a $500 or $1000
deductable...

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Ah, but *without* the device the insurance companies can easily pin it on
both; "prove us wrong". I had that happen in a parking lot a few years ago.
Both of us were at fault, which was fine with me. My truck bumper hit her
fender (both backing up). No damage at all to my bumper.

[HeyBub]

Harvey Specter wrote:
>
> And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers
> test.

I doubt that assertion.

#1. I'll bet, but am too lazy to look it up, that drivers over 60, per
capita, have fewer wrecks than drivers under 25.

#2. Most of us old farts recognize creeping infirmity and adjust our
behavior accordingly. I, for example, know my reaction time has increased
over the years, so I expand the distance I use in following another car,
particularily at speed. I also check cross-street traffic twice, rather than
relying on the other driver to stop, and so on.

#3. With age comes patience. I can't remember the last time I flipped the
bird at another driver, shouted some obscenity, resorted to freeway
pay-back, or played a game of chicken.

No more road-rage for me. You'd be surprised at how much respect and
admiration you can garner by showing off your really big gun!

[HeyBub]

As they say in Parliament, "Hear! Hear!"

[The Daring Dufas]

I have a feeling a remote kill switch and government database containing
the kill code for every vehicle will be added by
well meaning lawmakers to the specs for all new vehicles sold
in this country. It is for the children. ^_^

TDD

[notbob]

On 2012-08-03, The Daring Dufas <the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote:

> I have a feeling a remote kill switch and government database containing
> the kill code for every vehicle will be added by
> well meaning lawmakers to the specs for all new vehicles sold
> in this country. It is for the children. ^_^

Not a new idea. That one's been waiting in the wings fer some time.

[Stormin Mormon]

Didn't Onstar do that already?

I have also heard of "buy here; pay here" places doing that, also. Using
remote boxes, and computer interface. I don't have the story, but I remember
hearing of a car place, an employee was fired, but they didn't delete his
log and pass for their computer. He went home, and disabled 100 plus cars,
from his home computer.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"The Daring Dufas" <the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote in message
news:jvhhs7$f0$1...@dont-email.me...

[The Daring Dufas]

On 8/3/2012 5:14 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-08-03, The Daring Dufas <the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a feeling a remote kill switch and government database containing
>> the kill code for every vehicle will be added by
>> well meaning lawmakers to the specs for all new vehicles sold
>> in this country. It is for the children. ^_^
>
> Not a new idea. That one's been waiting in the wings fer some time.
>
> nb
>

Like gun control. O_o

Remember Jimmy Carter's (female?) head of DOT who wanted all automobiles
fitted with governors to keep them from exceeding
55mph? ^_^

TDD

[bob haller]

On Aug 3, 6:03 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net> wrote:

for our safety........

incidenty young drivers vare statistically worse than old drivers

with age comes some self control, for many......

young people havent known failure and believe they are
indestructible...

i taught a 16 year old to drive, he believed the speed limit was the
minimum speed to drive. he passed his drivers test on saturday, and
had a accident monday afternoon..... 72 hours later.

he laughed at my driving, go a little under the speed limit, never be
in a hurry, leave lots of extra space between you and everyone else,
dont follow too close......

i seriously suggested he drive more like me.......

if he has another accident before he turns 18 his mom will make him
turn in his license, for his safety and beyond which insurance wouldnt
be affordable.....

i drive for my job over 40K miles a year......

[The Daring Dufas]

Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^

TDD

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:56:16 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>Harvey Specter wrote:
>>
>> And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers
>> test.
>
>I doubt that assertion.
>
>#1. I'll bet, but am too lazy to look it up, that drivers over 60, per
>capita, have fewer wrecks than drivers under 25.

Yep. I posted a link to some statistics earlier.

>#2. Most of us old farts recognize creeping infirmity and adjust our
>behavior accordingly. I, for example, know my reaction time has increased
>over the years, so I expand the distance I use in following another car,
>particularily at speed. I also check cross-street traffic twice, rather than
>relying on the other driver to stop, and so on.

...and check twice, in case you forgot. ;-)

>#3. With age comes patience. I can't remember the last time I flipped the
>bird at another driver, shouted some obscenity, resorted to freeway
>pay-back, or played a game of chicken.

Alzheimer's does that, too. ;-)

>No more road-rage for me. You'd be surprised at how much respect and
>admiration you can garner by showing off your really big gun!
>

Didn't they tell you to put that away! It scares the children.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:19:31 -0500, The Daring Dufas

I suggested that they start with Carter (hmm, I did have a car fitted with a
Carter carburetor). Perhaps today Cuomo could run along beside your car.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Aug 3, 6:03�pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
>finger.net> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 2:26 PM, dennisga...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>> >> I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
>> >> because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
>> >> vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
>> >> government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
>> >> on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^
>>
>> > If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.
>>
>> I have a feeling a remote kill switch and government database containing
>> the kill code for every vehicle will be added by
>> well meaning lawmakers to the specs for all new vehicles sold
>> in this country. It is for the children. ^_^
>>
>> TDD
>
>for our safety........
>
>incidenty young drivers vare statistically worse than old drivers
>
>with age comes some self control, for many......
>
>young people havent known failure and believe they are
>indestructible...
>
>i taught a 16 year old to drive, he believed the speed limit was the
>minimum speed to drive. he passed his drivers test on saturday, and
>had a accident monday afternoon..... 72 hours later.

What was he doing driving alone 72 hours after getting his license? Mommy
screwed up, big time. It was a month before I got the car by myself and my
son wasn't much different (though he was 18 before he got is license - had to
force him to get it).

>he laughed at my driving, go a little under the speed limit, never be
>in a hurry, leave lots of extra space between you and everyone else,
>dont follow too close......
>
>i seriously suggested he drive more like me.......

Yeah, I bet he listened intently to that suggestion. <rolls eyes>

>if he has another accident before he turns 18 his mom will make him
>turn in his license, for his safety and beyond which insurance wouldnt
>be affordable.....

I would have pulled the keys after the first one (before, see above).
Insurance usually goes *way* up for minors after the first accident.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

[Harry K]

If you are concerned with shutting down the ones casusing most of the
accidents. don't let anyone undeer 21 drive.

As for not begin able to tell Mr. Magoo to stop driving...it is done
everyday. Doctors report it, LE offerecers request re-eval, etc. I
got my own wife's licence pulled.

Granted that not enough relatives have the 'nads to take the keys away
from an elder.

Harry K

[Harry K]

LOL. Good point!!!

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Aug 3, 12:59 pm, Gil <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:

I'll lay odds that dennisga... is one of the cars in the ques on the
interstate running y75 with 1 sec or less separation.

Harry K

[The Daring Dufas]

Did you see the last Star Trek movie. When Kirk was a kid, he took his
stepfather's vintage Corvette for a joy ride. What would cops do about
pre-inhibited vehicles? ^_^

TDD

[Benny Baroni]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:ZoGdnSdK6Mdsp4HN...@earthlink.com...

> I also check cross-street traffic twice, rather than
> relying on the other driver to stop, and so on.
>

Smart strategy considering most drivers are sexting and texting and facebooking etc etc. ;-)

[HeyBub]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
>> put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^
>
> I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)

Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I'd go almost two weeks but now the "other side" is 18 miles and I commute to
AL on the weekends. At least I only have a couple of more months of that.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 08/03/2012 05:13 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Didn't Onstar do that already?
>
> I have also heard of "buy here; pay here" places doing that, also. Using
> remote boxes, and computer interface. I don't have the story, but I remember
> hearing of a car place, an employee was fired, but they didn't delete his
> log and pass for their computer. He went home, and disabled 100 plus cars,
> from his home computer.

And such a car place should be required to REMOVE the device once the
car is paid for.

> Christopher A. Young

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Marge, have you ever actually sat down and read this thing?
Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." [Priest on
"The Simpsonb

[Mark Lloyd]

I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier
highest of($4.00 / gal).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Marge, have you ever actually sat down and read this thing?
Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." [Priest on

"The Simpson's"]

[gpsman]

On Aug 3, 4:40 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
> >crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
> >[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> >Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
> >(VTTI)."

> >http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturali...

>
> The average driver isn't crashing.

Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
years...

> Your logic isn't.

So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.

> >> Then one that shows that "not
> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>
> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>
> The issue was a stupid rant against texting.  Not that I'm for DWT but it was
> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.

Always the other guy's fault, huh?

It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are
all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...

> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>
> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>
> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>
> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
> (add list from above) while driving.

I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
yesterday.

This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
them all to screeching halts.

I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
task".
-----

- gpsman

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

wrote:

>On Aug 3, 4:40�pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
>> >crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
>> >[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
>> >Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
>> >(VTTI)."
>> >http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturali...
>>
>> The average driver isn't crashing.
>
>Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
>years...

Exactly my point. The "average motorist isn't crashing".

>> Your logic isn't.
>
>So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.

Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about. In your
case...

>> >> Then one that shows that "not
>> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>>
>> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
>> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>>
>> The issue was a stupid rant against texting. �Not that I'm for DWT but it was
>> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.
>
>Always the other guy's fault, huh?

More of your famous "logic".

>It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are
>all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...

More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many",
or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother
come save me" rant. <spit>

>> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
>> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>>
>> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>>
>> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>>
>> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
>> (add list from above) while driving.
>
>I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
>yesterday.

I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what? Driving doesn't,
indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.

>This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
>between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
>bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
>bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
>them all to screeching halts.

More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.

>I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
>what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
>task".

So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:59:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd <non...@none.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/04/2012 07:10 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
>>>> put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^
>>>
>>> I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)
>>
>> Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
>> put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
>> to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...
>>
>>
>
>I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier
>highest of($4.00 / gal).

I had a 65$ "fillup" recently. I had my 2-1/2 gallon mower can with me, but
still... Gas here has jumped $.50 in the last month ($.25 in the last week).

[Harry K]

On Aug 3, 9:11 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net> wrote:

They'll be banned from re-registering or required to get the new
technology installed
of course. :(

Harry K

[Harry K]

In the trunks of the car ahead of them. Happened here yesterday, two
motorcycles impacted a car on highway that slowed down for unknown
reasons. Bikers "tried to evade"...gee, ya think a few seconds of
spacing would have allowed that?

>
> I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
> what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
> task".

Las time I rode with my wife she scared the hell out of me. Got her
lic pulled a couple weeks later. Couldn't figure out why she kept
varying speed, I watched. Following too close and eyes locked on the
bumper ahead.

Harry K

[HeyBub]

gpsman wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:40 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
>>> crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
>>> [Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>> Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation
>>> Institute (VTTI)."
>>> http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturali...
>>
>> The average driver isn't crashing.
>
> Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
> years...
>

That statement could be misleading:

Assume 1000 drivers.

In ten years (3650 days), that's 1000 crashes.

It could be that the SAME driver is having a crash ever 3.5 days, while the
other 999 drivers are enjoying a crash-free life style.

[Harry K]

Heh. I got a 5 gal can of gas and tried to fill the small tank on my
PU. Nope, took the entire $50 and gauge only showed 7/8th.

Harry K

[gpsman]

On Aug 4, 2:09 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>

wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Aug 3, 4:40 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
> >> >crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
> >> >[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> >> >Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
> >> >(VTTI)."
> >> >http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturali...
>
> >> The average driver isn't crashing.
>
> >Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
> >years...
>
> Exactly my point.  The "average motorist isn't crashing".

"Not crashing" ≠ "driving".

> >> Your logic isn't.
>
> >So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.
>
> Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about.  In your
> case...

"Your logic isn't" isn't even a complete sentence. In context you
could only have meant to imply my logic isn't crashing.

> >> >> Then one that shows that "not
> >> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>
> >> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
> >> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>
> >> The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
> >> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.
>
> >Always the other guy's fault, huh?
>
> More of your famous "logic".

Nice dodge.

> >It didn't seem that much of a rant to me.  I think your panties are
> >all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...
>
> More of your famous "logic".  Try "most".  If the moron had said "too many",
> or even "many", I'd agree.  As it was written it's just another "big brother
> come save me" rant.  <spit>

Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Here is the comment in
its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?hl=en&dmode=source

> >> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
> >> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>
> >> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>
> >> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>
> >> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
> >> (add list from above) while driving.
>
> >I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
> >yesterday.
>
> I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift.  So what?

So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

>  Driving doesn't,
> indeed can't, require 100% concentration.  You'd never get to work.

How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
destination... ?

> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
> >them all to screeching halts.
>
> More strawmen.  Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  Nice technique.

There are no straw men in that paragraph. A straw man is an
fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
position.

> >I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
> >what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
> >task".
>
> So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.

I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.

If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.
-----

- gpsman

[tra...@optonline.net]

> is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...


It's hard for me to understand how as written it's another "big
brother
come save me rant". But if instead of "most" the poster had said
"too many", then it drastically changes it into something else.

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.
I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a
regular basis. And those are just the ones I see. It also gets down
at some point to your definition of distracted.

Here's some data from an actual poll:


"Whether it's talking on cellphones, fiddling with food and drink or
doing some last-minute grooming, a large majority of adult drivers in
the United States admit to being dangerously distracted while behind
the wheel, a new poll shows.

Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY
Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking
on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.
EnlargeClose
Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY
Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking
on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.

Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll,
most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86
percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting
their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup
(14 percent)."


Now that is some actual data. So, whether you take the poster's
exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't
think materially changes a thing.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 06:09:52 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

wrote:

>On Aug 4, 2:09 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:05:59 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Aug 3, 4:40 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-
>> >> >crashes, according to a landmark research report released today
>> >> >[Thursday, April 21, 2006] by the National Highway Traffic Safety
>> >> >Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
>> >> >(VTTI)."
>> >> >http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2006/100-Car+Naturali...
>>
>> >> The average driver isn't crashing.
>>
>> >Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10
>> >years...
>>
>> Exactly my point.  The "average motorist isn't crashing".
>

>"Not crashing" ? "driving".

>
>> >> Your logic isn't.
>>
>> >So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.
>>
>> Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about.  In your
>> case...
>
>"Your logic isn't" isn't even a complete sentence. In context you
>could only have meant to imply my logic isn't crashing.

Wrong. Isn't refers back to "logic". Even a moron can understand that.

>> >> >> Then one that shows that "not
>> >> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>>
>> >> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
>> >> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>>
>> >> The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
>> >> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.
>>
>> >Always the other guy's fault, huh?
>>
>> More of your famous "logic".
>
>Nice dodge.

No, it was a response to a stupid strawman argument. You're good at them.

>> >It didn't seem that much of a rant to me.  I think your panties are
>> >all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...
>>
>> More of your famous "logic".  Try "most".  If the moron had said "too many",
>> or even "many", I'd agree.  As it was written it's just another "big brother
>> come save me" rant.  <spit>
>
>Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Here is the comment in
>its entirety:
>
>"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,

^^^^ utter nonsense

>twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
>this
>is actually a good idea."
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?hl=en&dmode=source

Do read what's written.

>> >> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
>> >> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>>
>> >> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>>
>> >> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>>
>> >> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
>> >> (add list from above) while driving.
>>
>> >I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
>> >yesterday.
>>
>> I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift.  So what?
>
>So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

You're an idiot. You were trying to shift the argument. That *is* a strawman
in itself.

>>  Driving doesn't,
>> indeed can't, require 100% concentration.  You'd never get to work.
>
>How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
>destination... ?

You really are an idiot. If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.

>> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
>> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
>> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
>> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
>> >them all to screeching halts.
>>
>> More strawmen.  Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  Nice technique.
>
>There are no straw men in that paragraph. A straw man is an
>fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
>position.

You have no brain. The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
paragraph. It is a total strawman.

>> >I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
>> >what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
>> >task".
>>
>> So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.
>
>I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.

No, moron, you're the illiterate one.

>If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
>escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
>can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.

It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent. If it were,
there would be *far* more accidents.

[gpsman]

On Aug 5, 9:41 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> On Aug 5, 9:09 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is the comment in
> > its entirety:
>
> > "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> > this
> > is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...
>

> The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
> I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.

It isn't exaggeration.

> I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a
> regular basis.  And those are just the ones I see.  It also gets down
> at some point to your definition of distracted.

"Not fully engaged in the driving task".

The subject of driver distraction is almost entirely misunderstood
because it is invariably limited to intentional distractions when
simply being distracted by one's internal monologue is also a major
factor in driver inattention.

Motorists learn themselves the wrong things. Operating a motor
vehicle w/o full attention rarely results in a crash. The obviously
wrong conclusion is it doesn't take full attention. The problem is,
when the moment arrives that it does too many motorists are way
behind; the proverbial "100 kt. pilots in 200 kt. airplanes".

I wonder how the average motorist would feel if their pilot ignored
FAA rules and operated the aircraft in accordance with what they think
their experience learned them were their limits...

> Here's some data from an actual poll:
>

> Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll,
> most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some
> point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86
> percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting
> their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup
> (14 percent)."
>
> Now that is some actual data.

It's data, but mostly related to what people are willing to admit.
Only 86% were willing to admit they ate/drank and I think we can
reasonably assume the real number would be much closer to 100%.

> So, whether you take the poster's
> exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't
> think materially changes a thing.

Driving is widely considered "safe". The evidence is overwhelming and
includes pedestrians waiting to cross the street with their toes (and/
or occupied stroller) sticking out over the curb.

I don't want to count the number of people I know whose lives were
ended, shortened or made miserable and/or have been rendered unable to
work by easily predictable and preventable vehicle crashes, but it's a
dozen, at least, not including myself.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Aug 5, 12:23 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

What does it take to forward "Your logic isn't" as a complete
sentence?

> >> >> >> Then one that shows that "not
> >> >> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>
> >> >> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
> >> >> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>
> >> >> The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
> >> >> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.
>
> >> >Always the other guy's fault, huh?
>
> >> More of your famous "logic".
>
> >Nice dodge.
>
> No, it was a response to a stupid strawman argument.  You're good at them.

T h a t i s n o t a s t r a w m a n. That's as slow as I can
type.

> >> >It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are
> >> >all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...
>
> >> More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many",
> >> or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother
> >> come save me" rant. <spit>
>
> >Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit.  Here is the comment in
> >its entirety:
>
> >"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
>
>                    ^^^^  utter nonsense

"Nyuh uh" is the rebuttal of children and nitwits. Where's your
evidence?

> >twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> >this
> >is actually a good idea."

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...

>
> Do read what's written.

I did. That is a straw man. I slid the goal post to "not fully
engaged.

> >> >> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
> >> >> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>
> >> >> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>
> >> >> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>
> >> >> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
> >> >> (add list from above) while driving.
>
> >> >I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
> >> >yesterday.
>
> >> I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what?
>
> >So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.
>
> You're an idiot. You were trying to shift the argument.  That *is* a strawman
> in itself.

No, a straw man is when I try to misrepresent -your- argument. "Not
fully engaged in the driving task" is the -new- argument -I- forwarded
that merely expands the sources of distraction/s. Attacking it as a
straw man of your argument is obviously false.

> >> Driving doesn't,
> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>
> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
> >destination... ?
>
> You really are an idiot.  If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.

That's merely repeating your assertion. The question is "how".

> >> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
> >> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
> >> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
> >> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
> >> >them all to screeching halts.
>
> >> More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.
>
> >There are no straw men in that paragraph.  A straw man is an
> >fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
> >position.
>
> You have no brain.  The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
> paragraph.  It is a total strawman.

No, you don't know what straw man means, even after I told you. Not
only do you seem stupid but incapable of learning.

> >> >I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
> >> >what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
> >> >task".
>
> >> So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.
>
> >I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.
>
> No, moron, you're the illiterate one.

Obviously...

> >If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
> >escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
> >can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.
>
> It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent.  If it were,
> there would be *far* more accidents.

Non sequitur. Not crashing is the least standard of competence.

If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such
a simple thing as signal...? Too hard...?
-----

- gpsman

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

Clearly, you need an English lesson. It *is* a complete sentence, with "logic"
implied. Rather like "Eat shit!"; "you" is implied.

>> >> >> >> Then one that shows that "not
>> >> >> >> fully engaged" == texting or (you can read the list from above)
>>
>> >> >> >I don't believe the list was intended to be all-inclusive, and only
>> >> >> >someone grasping at straws would interpret it that way.
>>
>> >> >> The issue was a stupid rant against texting. Not that I'm for DWT but it was
>> >> >> a stupid rant, which you've just made more stupid with your tangent.
>>
>> >> >Always the other guy's fault, huh?
>>
>> >> More of your famous "logic".
>>
>> >Nice dodge.
>>
>> No, it was a response to a stupid strawman argument.  You're good at them.
>
>T h a t i s n o t a s t r a w m a n. That's as slow as I can
>type.

You're an idiot. It was an argument set up for the sole purpose of knocking
down; a strawman.

>> >> >It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are
>> >> >all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...
>>
>> >> More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many",
>> >> or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother
>> >> come save me" rant. <spit>
>>
>> >Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit.  Here is the comment in
>> >its entirety:
>>
>> >"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
>>
>>                    ^^^^  utter nonsense
>
>"Nyuh uh" is the rebuttal of children and nitwits. Where's your
>evidence?

*YOU* made the absurd claim, moron. It's up to *you* to provide the evidence.
That's just the way it works.

>> >twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
>> >this
>> >is actually a good idea."
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...
>>
>> Do read what's written.
>
>I did. That is a straw man. I slid the goal post to "not fully
>engaged.

You clearly didn't understand it. Try starting again at first grade. This
time maybe in a private school.

>> >> >> >> >All one must do to confirm this fact is note/recall their own internal
>> >> >> >> >monologue the next/last time they motored.
>>
>> >> >> >> <irrelevant bullshit snipped>
>>
>> >> >> >That's exactly the type of sparkling rebuttal I expected.
>>
>> >> >> OK, genius, tell us how it's relevant to the *majority* of drivers texting
>> >> >> (add list from above) while driving.
>>
>> >> >I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task"
>> >> >yesterday.
>>
>> >> I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what?
>>
>> >So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.
>>
>> You're an idiot. You were trying to shift the argument.  That *is* a strawman
>> in itself.
>
>No, a straw man is when I try to misrepresent -your- argument. "Not
>fully engaged in the driving task" is the -new- argument -I- forwarded
>that merely expands the sources of distraction/s. Attacking it as a
>straw man of your argument is obviously false.

No, dufus. A strawman is an argument set up for the specific purpose of
knocking down. You shifted the goal posts, precisely for that purpose.

>> >> Driving doesn't,
>> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>>
>> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
>> >destination... ?
>>
>> You really are an idiot.  If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
>> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.
>
>That's merely repeating your assertion. The question is "how".

You obviously can't read. No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
for long periods. It's physically impossible.

>> >> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
>> >> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
>> >> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
>> >> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
>> >> >them all to screeching halts.
>>
>> >> More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.
>>
>> >There are no straw men in that paragraph.  A straw man is an
>> >fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
>> >position.
>>
>> You have no brain.  The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
>> paragraph.  It is a total strawman.
>
>No, you don't know what straw man means, even after I told you. Not
>only do you seem stupid but incapable of learning.

Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. It doesn't
address the point, however. It is specifically set up to win an argument,
even if it isn't the same argument.

Are you really another of DumbShit's nyms? You're about that smart.

>> >> >I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but
>> >> >what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving
>> >> >task".
>>
>> >> So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.
>>
>> >I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.
>>
>> No, moron, you're the illiterate one.
>
>Obviously...

Well, we agree.

>> >If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
>> >escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
>> >can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.
>>
>> It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent.  If it were,
>> there would be *far* more accidents.
>
>Non sequitur. Not crashing is the least standard of competence.

It's the only one that matters.

>If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>a simple thing as signal...? Too hard...?

Cite!

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 5, 12:38 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:41 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:09 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here is the comment in
> > > its entirety:
>
> > > "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> > > this
> > > is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...
>
> > The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
> > I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.
>
> It isn't exaggeration.

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What
specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers

are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,

updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure
every driver has been distracted by something at some
point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that
if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even
allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I
say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

So, link please?

[homme de la maison]

On 08/05/2012 02:35 PM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

>
>
> Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What
> specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
> are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
> updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure
> every driver has been distracted by something at some
> point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that
> if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
> those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even
> allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I
> say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
> were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.
>
> So, link please?
>
>

No link required...
Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:24:51 -0400, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison>
wrote:

You really are a dumbshit, DumbShit.

[John Gilmer]

>
> And then you got the over-60 crowd, most can barely pass a drivers test.

My my observation, the slight decline in reflexes in the 60s is more
than compensated for by the "experience" factor. I have flown with a
pilot who was in his 70s.

Most folks I know are still quite good drivers up to at least 75.

If you want to "generalize," I would set the "test often" age to 75.
Most would still qualify, IMO.

[gpsman]

On Aug 5, 2:11 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>

wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Aug 5, 12:23 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>

> >> >> Driving doesn't,
> >> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>
> >> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
> >> >destination... ?
>
> >> You really are an idiot.  If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
> >> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.
>
> >That's merely repeating your assertion.  The question is "how".
>
> You obviously can't read.  No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
> for long periods.  It's physically impossible.

Your cite seems to be missing...

> >> >> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
> >> >> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
> >> >> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
> >> >> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
> >> >> >them all to screeching halts.
>
> >> >> More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.
>
> >> >There are no straw men in that paragraph.  A straw man is an
> >> >fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
> >> >position.
>
> >> You have no brain.  The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
> >> paragraph.  It is a total strawman.
>
> >No, you don't know what straw man means, even after I told you.  Not
> >only do you seem stupid but incapable of learning.
>
> Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument.  It doesn't
> address the point, however.  It is specifically set up to win an argument,
> even if it isn't the same argument.
>
> Are you really another of DumbShit's nyms?  You're about that smart.

Said the guy who wouldn't know a straw man if hit over the head with
it.

> >> >If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
> >> >escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
> >> >can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.
>
> >> It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent.  If it were,
> >> there would be *far* more accidents.
>
> >Non sequitur.  Not crashing is the least standard of competence.
>
> It's the only one that matters.

There's a small matter of causing others to crash.

> >If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such
>
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >a simple thing as signal...?  Too hard...?
>
> Cite!

Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet
Driving Expert, August 2012.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Aug 5, 2:35 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>

wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:38 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 9:41 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 9:09 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Here is the comment in
> > > > its entirety:
>
> > > > "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > > > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> > > > this
> > > > is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...
>
> > > The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
> > > I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.
>
> > It isn't exaggeration.
>
> Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one.  What
> specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
> are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
> updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?

You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
6" bandwagon...?

> Sure
> every driver has been distracted by something at some
> point.  But that isn't what that statement says.  It says that
> if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
> those driving are engaged in those activities.  I'll even
> allow the leeway of just being distracted period.

That's kind.

>  And I
> say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
> were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
distractions.

> So, link please?

Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?
-----

- gpsman

[notbob]

On 2012-08-05, homme de la maison <ho...@de-la.maison> wrote:

> No link required...
> Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

LOL!....

Too true. And this long before cellphones and their ilk. I've seen
ppl reading books while driving. Not like the guy reading the morning
paper, with the newspaper propped up on the stearing wheel where he
could maintain some semblance of line-of-sight with the road, but a
book lying open on the seat beside the reader, the reader having to
take his eyes off the road and look over and down. Scary stuff.

nb

--
"Do you recognize me? No!
...cuz I don't work here"
Support labelling GMO foods
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 6, 8:33 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2:35 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 12:38 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 9:41 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 5, 9:09 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Here is the comment in
> > > > > its entirety:
>
> > > > > "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > > > > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> > > > > this
> > > > > is actually a good idea."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?h...
>
> > > > The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and
> > > > I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point.
>
> > > It isn't exaggeration.
>
> > Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one.  What
> > specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers
> > are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting,
> > updating Fecesbook or applying makeup?
>
> You're going to jump on the "driver distractions are limited to these
> 6" bandwagon...?

No, in fact I clearly said I'll allow the distractions to go
beyond those specific 6. And I still say there is no evidence
that *most* drivers are driving distracted. A significant
number, yes. If it were *most* we'd be seeing accidents one
after the other.

>
> > Sure
> > every driver has been distracted by something at some
> > point.  But that isn't what that statement says.  It says that
> > if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
> > those driving are engaged in those activities.  I'll even
> > allow the leeway of just being distracted period.
>
> That's kind.

Then why did you just ask the question about limiting
distraction to just the six on the list?

>
> >  And I
> > say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
> > were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.
>
> That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
> distractions.

From the context of the discussion, it's clear we're talking
about distraction that is serious enough to have a significant
impairment in the driver's ability. All the things on that list
qualify. Now, if for purposes of digging yoursefl out of your
self-created hole, you want to try to expand your definition
of distracted to the driver thinking about what the weather may
be where they are going, or similar nonsense, then I call BS.

>
> > So, link please?
>
> Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> of motorists aren't distracted...?
>  -----
>

> - gpsman- Hide quoted text -
>

Try it this way. YOU are making the claim. It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. That's the
way things work in my world. This has been studied quite a
bit and I have never seen a study that suggests what you
claim. So, link please?

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

Idiot. You're making the outrageous claims. I'ts *your* task to back them
up.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 6, 8:15 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2:11 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Aug 5, 12:23 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>
> > >> >> Driving doesn't,
> > >> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>
> > >> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
> > >> >destination... ?
>
> > >> You really are an idiot.  If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
> > >> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.
>
> > >That's merely repeating your assertion.  The question is "how".
>
> > You obviously can't read.  No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
> > for long periods.  It's physically impossible.
>
> Your cite seems to be missing...
>
>

Funny that the guy who 10 posts later still has no reference
at all to support his claim, now demands a reference for this?
First, in the context of the discussion where you claimed most
drivers are driving distracted, the distractions listed were
serious ones:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Now if you want to shift the discussion not from those specific
ones or similar SERIOUS distractions, to ANY situation
where a driver is not 100% focused only on driving,
then KRW is right. No one could drive for say 5 miles,
giving 100% attention, unless perhaps it were some
experiment where they knew that was their specific task.
And even then, it likely wouldn't work, because, well they
would also be thinking about the experiment, what they
were told to do, etc.


Let's say I'm thinking about which route to take 10 miles ahead.
Ergo, I'm no longer focused 100% on the immediate task of driving.
Or say I'm wondering what the weather will be like where I'm
going. My attention is now split between that and driving and
no longer 100% focused on driving.

So, yeah, if in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole you
want to try to expand the definition of distracted to that
level, then I agree with KRW, nobody could drive for more
than extremely short periods with 100% concentration.
But then the claim taken in context was never about that,
It was about serious distractions while driving.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 05:15:07 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>

wrote:

>On Aug 5, 2:11�pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Aug 5, 12:23�pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>
>> >> >> Driving doesn't,
>> >> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>>
>> >> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
>> >> >destination... ?
>>
>> >> You really are an idiot. �If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't
>> >> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.
>>
>> >That's merely repeating your assertion. �The question is "how".
>>
>> You obviously can't read. �No one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
>> for long periods. �It's physically impossible.
>
>Your cite seems to be missing...

You're an idiot. It's impossible for a human to concentrate on one thing for
even ten minutes. The brain doesn't function that way.

>> >> >> >This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length
>> >> >> >between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the
>> >> >> >bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the
>> >> >> >bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings
>> >> >> >them all to screeching halts.
>>
>> >> >> More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.
>>
>> >> >There are no straw men in that paragraph. �A straw man is an
>> >> >fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
>> >> >position.
>>
>> >> You have no brain. �The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that
>> >> paragraph. �It is a total strawman.
>>
>> >No, you don't know what straw man means, even after I told you. �Not
>> >only do you seem stupid but incapable of learning.
>>
>> Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. �It doesn't
>> address the point, however. �It is specifically set up to win an argument,
>> even if it isn't the same argument.
>>
>> Are you really another of DumbShit's nyms? �You're about that smart.
>
>Said the guy who wouldn't know a straw man if hit over the head with
>it.

Good Lord, you're an idiot.

>> >> >If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists
>> >> >escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they
>> >> >can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes.
>>
>> >> It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent. �If it were,
>> >> there would be *far* more accidents.
>>
>> >Non sequitur. �Not crashing is the least standard of competence.
>>
>> It's the only one that matters.
>
>There's a small matter of causing others to crash.

Are you *really* that stupid? A crash is a crash. If the problem were as bad
as you say, there would be crashes everywhere.

>> >If they aren't grossly incompetent why won't the vast majority do such
>>
>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >a simple thing as signal...? �Too hard...?
>>
>> Cite!
>
>Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet
>Driving Expert, August 2012.

Consider yourself the stupidest person on the Usenet, August 2012. ...and
that's some honor.

[gpsman]

On Aug 6, 9:30 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>

There's no evidence they aren't.

> A significant
> number, yes.   If it were *most* we'd be seeing accidents one
> after the other.

Single cause fallacy.

> > > Sure
> > > every driver has been distracted by something at some
> > > point.  But that isn't what that statement says.  It says that
> > > if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of
> > > those driving are engaged in those activities.  I'll even
> > > allow the leeway of just being distracted period.
>
> > That's kind.
>
> Then why did you just ask the question about limiting
> distraction to just the six on the list?

Clarification, because I had not gotten this far in your post.

> > >  And I
> > > say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute
> > > were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.
>
> > That's because you want to make no distinction of level or duration of
> > distractions.
>
> From the context of the discussion, it's clear we're talking
> about distraction that is serious enough to have a significant
> impairment in the driver's ability.

No. It's significant enough that they often fail to recognize
developing circumstances that lead to crashing.

> All the things on that list
> qualify.   Now, if for purposes of digging yoursefl out of your
> self-created hole, you want to try to expand your definition
> of distracted to the  driver thinking about what the weather may
> be where they are going, or similar nonsense, then I call BS.

Fine. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to describe the methods you use to
take and maintain "conscious control of the attentional spotlight".

> > > So, link please?
>
> > Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> > of motorists aren't distracted...?
>

> Try it this way.  YOU are making the claim.  It's up to YOU
> to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it.   That's the
> way things work in my world.

This isn't your world. In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

> This has been studied quite a
> bit and I have never seen a study that suggests what you
> claim.

I commend you for using the word "seen" rather than "read", but there
is nothing to suggest the vast majority of motorists are not
distracted.

> So, link please?

All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.
-----

- gpsman

[Harry K]

Agree. I wonder how many licenses would be pulled if everyone found
"at fault" in accidents was given a mandatory retest.

Harry K

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 6, 9:57 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, link please?
>
> > > Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> > > of motorists aren't distracted...?
>
> > Try it this way.  YOU are making the claim.  It's up to YOU
> > to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it.   That's the
> > way things work in my world.
>
> This isn't your world.  In the real world there is a word in use you
> should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

Again, that is NOT how it works. YOU made the claim.
YOU provide the proof. It would be a very strange and impossible
world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
ridiculous claim made. Your obvious problem is that you've
dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.

>
> All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
> drive.
>  -----
>

> - gpsman- Hide quoted text -
>

Let's look at the specific list again
of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:

"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
or applying makeup"

Those are serious distractons. All with the possible
exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
Now you want to make it
include a driver just thinking about anything at all
that is not their immeadiate driving task? Like what
time they may arrive where they are going?
How nuts is that? By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
100% of drivers are distracted.

I call BS on you.

[gpsman]

On Aug 6, 10:25 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> On Aug 6, 9:57 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> > > > of motorists aren't distracted...?
>
> > > Try it this way.  YOU are making the claim.  It's up to YOU
> > > to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it.   That's the
> > > way things work in my world.
>
> > This isn't your world.  In the real world there is a word in use you
> > should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
>
> Again, that is NOT how it works.  YOU made the claim.
> YOU provide the proof.  It would be a very strange and impossible
> world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
> ridiculous claim made.   Your obvious problem is that you've
> dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.

Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
evidence most motorists are not distracted.

To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling. Do you want to
argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that? Chances are
99.9% you don't signal yourself.

I cite their speeds. Nothing there to suggest they are paying
attention. Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
speed limits?

I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
light with no apparent intention of stopping.

I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.

I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane. Motorists,
as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
maintain their lanes. If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
lane yourself.

I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
the room the wrong side of the road provides.

I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.

I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
them are in place.

I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.

I can do this all day.

I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".

I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".

I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
-6M crashes per year.

What evidence have you got...?

> > All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
> > drive.
>

> Let's look at the specific list again
> of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:
>
> "texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
>  or applying makeup"
>
> Those are serious distractons.  All with the possible
> exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
> Now you want to make it
> include a driver just thinking about anything at all
> that is not their immeadiate driving task?

What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?

> Like what
> time they may arrive where they are going?
> How nuts is that?  By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
> 100% of drivers are distracted.

Exactly. Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
endeavor to focus on driving.

The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.

Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for shit, the
conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable. The
evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
is occurring before their eyes.

> I call BS on you.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Cite something, if it's only anecdotal evidence...
-----

- gpsman

[Vic Smith]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
<gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

>
>The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
>considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
>can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.
>

You won't ever change it either. Many people talk on cells, hold
conversations with passengers, etc. They don't think anything of it,
and probably won't recognize their inattention to driving caused an
accident. Some people do multi-task better than others, but you
really can't take your eyes off the road.
I let a BIL drive my van on a trip back from a family event once, and
I sat on the bench seat behind him. He actually kept turning and
looking at me as we talked. At 75mph, and he followed too close.
Made him pull into a rest area so I could drive.
I do long trips with my wife, and we converse. But often I just say
"wait' and turn her off. It's situational.
She's drives pretty much the same way.
Diving is a bit of work for me, but I use methods to make it more
enjoyable. Mostly figuring traffic patterns to stay as far away from
other vehicles as possible.
It's kind of fun to know exactly what somebody will do before they
even do it. Can't count the times I've said, "He'll switch lanes,
then switch right back." Then he does it.
I'm sure my wife is bored with it, but she does like my driving style.

--
Vic

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 6, 11:59 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 10:25 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 9:57 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> > > > > of motorists aren't distracted...?
>
> > > > Try it this way.  YOU are making the claim.  It's up to YOU
> > > > to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it.   That's the
> > > > way things work in my world.
>
> > > This isn't your world.  In the real world there is a word in use you
> > > should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
>
> > Again, that is NOT how it works.  YOU made the claim.
> > YOU provide the proof.  It would be a very strange and impossible
> > world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
> > ridiculous claim made.   Your obvious problem is that you've
> > dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.
>
> Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
> evidence most motorists are not distracted.
>

The best evidence is the low rate of accidents. If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.

> To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling.  Do you want to
> argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that?  Chances are
> 99.9% you don't signal yourself.

Strawman.

Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. But is it most people that I
encounter every day? No way. And of course it really
is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything
about whether they are distracted or not. I would think
that most people who don't signal do it because they
are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all
the time, not because they are distracted by texting,
etc.

>
> I cite their speeds.  Nothing there to suggest they are paying
> attention.  Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
> speed limits?

Again strawman and you're wandering off here. Sure people speed
but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
because they are distracted. It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed. Can you find someone once in a
while that happens to go over the speed limit because they
went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt
realize it? Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.

>
> I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
> before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
> light with no apparent intention of stopping.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

>
> I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

>
> I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane.  Motorists,
> as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
> maintain their lanes.  If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
> motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
> lane yourself.

Finally you have something that very likely is due to being
distracted. Now, I don't know where you live. But I live in NJ
where I think we have some of the worst drivers. Do I see
someone drifting into my lane? Sure, once in a while.
Maybe a couple times a month. Now if MOST drivers
on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see
it many times an hour.

>
> I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
> the room the wrong side of the road provides.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

>
> I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.
>
> I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
> frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
> them are in place.
>
> I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
> speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.
>
> I can do this all day.

What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other
most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.

>
> I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".
>
> I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".
>
> I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
> leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
> -6M crashes per year.

But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your
claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting,
putting on makeup, etc. It's like saying smoking in bed
is the leading cause of house fires and then saying
that means most people smoke in bed.

>
> What evidence have you got...?
>
> > > All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
> > > drive.
>
> > Let's look at the specific list again
> > of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:
>
> > "texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
> >  or applying makeup"
>
> > Those are serious distractons.  All with the possible
> > exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
> > Now you want to make it
> > include a driver just thinking about anything at all
> > that is not their immeadiate driving task?
>
> What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?

In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while
distracted it would have to include ordinary things like
thinking about what you have to do when you get where
you're going. Or what's for dinner tonight. And as
KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are

distracted.

>
> > Like what
> > time they may arrive where they are going?
> > How nuts is that?  By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
> > 100% of drivers are distracted.
>
> Exactly.  Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
> overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
> endeavor to focus on driving.

You may believe that, but I disagree. And you're waffling
here by now including the modifier "not all the time".
If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time
or another while driving, I would agree with that.
But again, what you said was:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea. "





>

> The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
> considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
> can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.
>
> Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for shit, the
> conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
> not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable.

Not that I even agree with that, but again that isn't even close
to what you first said.

 >The
> evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
> might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
> attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
> total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
> is occurring before their eyes.

The relatively low number of accidents that happen
per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest
to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by
the likes of the serious distractions on your list.
If they were, accidents would be
happening at 100 times the rate they are.

Sure, once in a while someone is texting, putting
on makeup and winds up causing an accident.
But if that were most drivers cars would be
crashing on the roads everywhere.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Aug 6, 8:15锟絘m, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2:11锟絧m, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>

>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
>> > wrote:

>> > >On Aug 5, 12:23锟絧m, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

>>
>> > >> >> Driving doesn't,
>> > >> >> indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.
>>
>> > >> >How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a
>> > >> >destination... ?
>>

>> > >> You really are an idiot. 锟絀f it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't

>> > >> GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.
>>

>> > >That's merely repeating your assertion. 锟絋he question is "how".
>>
>> > You obviously can't read. 锟絅o one can give 100% concentration to *anything*
>> > for long periods. 锟絀t's physically impossible.

>>
>> Your cite seems to be missing...
>>
>>
>
>Funny that the guy who 10 posts later still has no reference
>at all to support his claim, now demands a reference for this?

It's just his childish comeback because I demanded a citation for his absurd
claim.

>First, in the context of the discussion where you claimed most
>drivers are driving distracted, the distractions listed were
>serious ones:
>
> "texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
>Fecesbook or applying makeup"
>
>Now if you want to shift the discussion not from those specific
>ones or similar SERIOUS distractions, to ANY situation
>where a driver is not 100% focused only on driving,
>then KRW is right. No one could drive for say 5 miles,
>giving 100% attention, unless perhaps it were some
>experiment where they knew that was their specific task.
>And even then, it likely wouldn't work, because, well they
>would also be thinking about the experiment, what they
>were told to do, etc.

Synopsis: His argument was that *most* drivers are distracted. If
"distracted" includes only that list (even other *serious* distractions),
claiming that most drivers are distracted is silly. If "distracted" means
that one is not using 100% of his mental abilities on the task of driving,
then everyone is always distracted. Sure, that meets the "most" criteria but
is hardly a useful definition; no harm done. Using either definition, gps is
nuts.

>
>Let's say I'm thinking about which route to take 10 miles ahead.
>Ergo, I'm no longer focused 100% on the immediate task of driving.
>Or say I'm wondering what the weather will be like where I'm
>going. My attention is now split between that and driving and
>no longer 100% focused on driving.

Right.

>So, yeah, if in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole you
>want to try to expand the definition of distracted to that
>level, then I agree with KRW, nobody could drive for more
>than extremely short periods with 100% concentration.
>But then the claim taken in context was never about that,
>It was about serious distractions while driving.

He's squirming from one definition to the other, with side trips down strawman
lane to try to win the point. The argument, either way, (narrow or
all-encompassing definition of "distracted") makes no sense.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
speed traps).

[gpsman]

On Aug 6, 4:21 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>

wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:59 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 10:25 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 9:57 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
> > > > > > of motorists aren't distracted...?
>
> > > > > Try it this way.  YOU are making the claim.  It's up to YOU
> > > > > to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it.   That's the
> > > > > way things work in my world.
>
> > > > This isn't your world.  In the real world there is a word in use you
> > > > should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
>
> > > Again, that is NOT how it works.  YOU made the claim.
> > > YOU provide the proof.  It would be a very strange and impossible
> > > world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
> > > ridiculous claim made.   Your obvious problem is that you've
> > > dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.
>
> > Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
> > evidence most motorists are not distracted.
>
> The best evidence is the low rate of accidents.

"Low"... compared to what?

> If most
> drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
> makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.

Non sequitur. Plenty of distracted driving occurs w/o crashing.

> > To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling.  Do you want to
> > argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that?  Chances are
> > 99.9% you don't signal yourself.
>
> Strawman.

Which of your arguments is the basis of that alleged straw man?

> Sure, I see some
> people who don't signal some times.  But is it most people that I
> encounter every day?   No way.

Then you're not paying attention.

> And of course it really
> is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything
> about whether they are distracted or not.   I would think
> that most people who don't signal do it because they
> are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all
> the time, not because they are distracted by texting,
> etc.

Fine. Do you have any evidence of that?

> > I cite their speeds.  Nothing there to suggest they are paying
> > attention.  Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
> > speed limits?
>
> Again strawman and you're wandering off here.  Sure people speed
> but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
> because they are distracted.

That's what you say.

> It's because they deliberately
> are choosing to speed.

I'm pretty sure any cop can tell you that's the rarest reason cited by
motorists when they get pulled over... so how did you arrive at your
conclusion?

> Can you find someone once in a
> while that happens to go over the speed limit because they
> went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt
> realize it?   Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.

If you're not observing speed limits there's nothing to suggest you
simply aren't paying attention.

> > I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
> > before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
> > light with no apparent intention of stopping.
>
> Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

How the fuck do you know?

> > I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.
>
> Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

Right. They're deliberately pinging off curbs.

> > I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane.  Motorists,
> > as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
> > maintain their lanes.  If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
> > motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
> > lane yourself.
>
> Finally you have something that very likely is due to being
> distracted.  Now, I don't know where you live.  But I live in NJ
> where I think we have some of the worst drivers.   Do I see
> someone drifting into my lane?  Sure, once in a while.
> Maybe a couple times a month.  Now if MOST drivers
> on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see
> it many times an hour.

You're not paying sufficient attention.

> > I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
> > the room the wrong side of the road provides.
>
> Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

What is there to suggest that? If driving on the wrong side of the
road is not evidence of distraction, what is?

> > I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.
>
> > I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
> > frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
> > them are in place.
>
> > I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
> > speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.
>
> > I can do this all day.
>
> What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other
> most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.

Which of your arguments is the basis of those alleged straw men?

> > I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".
>
> > I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".
>
> > I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
> > leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
> > -6M crashes per year.
>
> But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your
> claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting,
> putting on makeup, etc.  It's like saying smoking in bed
> is the leading cause of house fires and then saying
> that means most people smoke in bed.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying smoking in bed is the
leading cause of house fires, then attempting to conclude from that
that most people smoke.

What we have instead is motorists, all of which who motor.

> > What evidence have you got...?
>
> > > > All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
> > > > drive.
>
> > > Let's look at the specific list again
> > > of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:
>
> > > "texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
> > >  or applying makeup"
>
> > > Those are serious distractons.  All with the possible
> > > exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
> > > Now you want to make it
> > > include a driver just thinking about anything at all
> > > that is not their immeadiate driving task?
>
> > What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?
>
> In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while
> distracted it would have to include ordinary things like
> thinking about what you have to do when you get where
> you're going.  Or what's for dinner tonight.   And as
> KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are
> distracted.

Yes. 100% of motorists are distracted much of the time. If you're
not 100% devoted to piloting your vehicle you're distracted by
definition: "1 a : diversion of the attention"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/distraction

> > > Like what
> > > time they may arrive where they are going?
> > > How nuts is that?  By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
> > > 100% of drivers are distracted.
>
> > Exactly.  Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
> > overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
> > endeavor to focus on driving.
>
> You may believe that, but I disagree.  And you're waffling
> here by now including the modifier "not all the time".

I didn't modify it you illiterate fuck. Of course if one is
distracted all the time they're probably going to crash, and pretty
quick.

> If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time
> or another while driving,  I would agree with that.
> But again, what you said was:
>
> "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> this
> is actually a good idea. "

I did not write that.

> > The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
> > considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
> > can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.
>
> > Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for shit, the
> > conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
> > not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable.
>
> Not that I even agree with that, but again that isn't even close
> to what you first said.

What I first said was:
"Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task
is
easily.... well, you can't fucking miss it unless you have no idea of
what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
greater than very likely."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/38125746a5857f02?hl=en&dmode=source

>  >The
> > evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
> > might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
> > attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
> > total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
> > is occurring before their eyes.
>
> The relatively low number of accidents that happen
> per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest
> to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by
> the likes of the serious distractions on your list.
> If they were, accidents would be
> happening at 100 times the rate they are.

That's not my list.

> Sure, once in a while someone is texting, putting
> on makeup and winds up causing an accident.
> But if that were most drivers cars would be
> crashing on the roads everywhere.

Obviously not. Did you ever motor and talk on the phone? Let us
assume yes. Did you crash while doing so? Let us assume no.

People are very good at dividing their attention and not crashing.
What they aren't worth a fuck at is dividing their attention and
"driving". The vast majority of the time piss poor driving doesn't
result in a crash.

All one needs to do to confirm the prevalence of driver distraction is
note their internal monologues the next time they get behind the
wheel.

I taught some of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet to drive a
truck and none of them exhibited any problem understanding that they'd
previously been driving distracted their entire lives.
-----

- gpsman

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 6, 9:07 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
> > > evidence most motorists are not distracted.
>
> > The best evidence is the low rate of accidents.
>
> "Low"... compared to what?

Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
see if 51%+ of all drivers
were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".

>
> > If most
> > drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
> > makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.
>
> Non sequitur.  Plenty of distracted driving occurs w/o crashing.

Say that all you want, but I say if 51%+ of drivers out
there were "busy texting, sexting, blogging,

twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"

there would be a huge number of accidents and you'd
see them all over the place.

>
> > > To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling.  Do you want to
> > > argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that?  Chances are
> > > 99.9% you don't signal yourself.
>
> > Strawman.
>
> Which of your arguments is the basis of that alleged straw man?

Say what?

>
> > Sure, I see some
> > people who don't signal some times.  But is it most people that I
> > encounter every day?   No way.
>
> Then you're not paying attention.

Sure, it's my defect, not that you're making up crap.

>
> > And of course it really
> > is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything
> > about whether they are distracted or not.   I would think
> > that most people who don't signal do it because they
> > are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all
> > the time, not because they are distracted by texting,
> > etc.
>
> Fine.  Do you have any evidence of that?

Again, it's YOUR strawman. YOU made the claim.
It's up to YOU to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
I could claim I have a lemon tree with purple lemons.
Now, is it up to me to prove that I have it or everyone
else to try to prove it doesn't exist, which of course
is impossible?

>
> > > I cite their speeds.  Nothing there to suggest they are paying
> > > attention.  Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
> > > speed limits?
>
> > Again strawman and you're wandering off here.  Sure people speed
> > but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
> > because they are distracted.
>
> That's what you say.

I'm beginning to agree with KRW that there must be
something wrong with you. You're actually claiming that
the reason most people speed is because they are
distracted? Not that they know what the speed limit
is, but consciously go faster? Good grief. I can
take you down the Parkway here in NJ. Where the
speed limit is 55mph,, 90%+ of the cars are going
65+. All distracted? Of course not. They just know
that the cops give at least a 10mph leeway and
choose to go faster, with the flow of trafffic because
it's a reasonable, safe speed that feels comfortable.
I do it all the time myself and I'm not texting or updating
facebook. Do you really drive much?

>
> > It's because they deliberately
> > are choosing to speed.
>
> I'm pretty sure any cop can tell you that's the rarest reason cited by
> motorists when they get pulled over... so how did you arrive at your
> conclusion?

Geez, yet another strawman.

>
> > Can you find someone once in a
> > while that happens to go over the speed limit because they
> > went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt
> > realize it?   Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.
>
> If you're not observing speed limits there's nothing to suggest you
> simply aren't paying attention.

OK, now I do agree with KRW. You're an idiot.

>
> > > I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
> > > before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
> > > light with no apparent intention of stopping.
>
> > Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
>
> How the fuck do you know?

Well one way is that the cars that I've observed not
fully stopping when making a right-on-red,
I rarely notice them "busy texting, sexting, blogging,

twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"

And then the ones that roll stop signs without coming
to a complete stop, where I've
followed them for a bit, the vast majority due it at
every stop sign.

Yet the fact that they see the stop
sign and react consistently to it, strongly suggests
that they are not distracted. If they were distracted,
then I would expect them to miss the stop sign and
go right through it. The fact that they slow normally
starting at a reasonable distance from the sign,
slow almost to a stop, but then make a right turn,
strongly suggests that they know exactly what
they are doing. If they were distracted, then I
would expect to see T bone crashes, rear end
collisions, hitting
curbs, running over pedestrians. Instead all I
see is them consistently failing to come to a
complete and full stop. Pretty basic in my
book.


I also don't notice *most* cars arriving at a red light
with no apparent intention of stopping. Again, if
most cars, or even a lot of cars where doing that
all the time, you'd have one hell of a lot of rear
end collisions at lights or Tbone wrecks at
intersections. I personally can't recall the last
time I saw one.

> > > I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane.  Motorists,
> > > as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
> > > maintain their lanes.  If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
> > > motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
> > > lane yourself.
>
> > Finally you have something that very likely is due to being
> > distracted.  Now, I don't know where you live.  But I live in NJ
> > where I think we have some of the worst drivers.   Do I see
> > someone drifting into my lane?  Sure, once in a while.
> > Maybe a couple times a month.  Now if MOST drivers
> > on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see
> > it many times an hour.
>
> You're not paying sufficient attention.

Sure, my bad again.

>
> > > I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
> > > the room the wrong side of the road provides.
>
> > Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
>
> What is there to suggest that?  If driving on the wrong side of the
> road is not evidence of distraction, what is?

And yet another diversion into lala land. You brought up
"frequent L turns that can't be made without the room
the wrong side of the road provides". Now that has
morphed into "driving on the wrong side of the road?"

For the record, I don't see this L turn crap happening
here much at all.

>
> > > I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.
>
> > > I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
> > > frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
> > > them are in place.
>
> > > I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
> > > speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.
>
> > > I can do this all day.
>
> > What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other
> > most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.
>
> Which of your arguments is the basis of those alleged straw men?

Again, I don't know what your point is here.

>
> > > I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".
>
> > > I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".
>
> > > I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
> > > leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
> > > -6M crashes per year.
>
> > But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your
> > claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting,
> > putting on makeup, etc.  It's like saying smoking in bed
> > is the leading cause of house fires and then saying
> > that means most people smoke in bed.
>
> That makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying smoking in bed is the
> leading cause of house fires, then attempting to conclude from that
> that most people smoke.
>
> What we have instead is motorists, all of which who motor.
>

No, what we have is you claiming that because being
distracted is given as the number one cause of accidents,
that it somehow shows that 51%+ of drivers are driving
distracted. Hence, the good analogy, which you obviously
don't understand.

Here's another one. Let's say most people get cancer
from smoking. Does that provide evidence that 51% of all people
smoke?

> > In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while
> > distracted it would have to include ordinary things like
> > thinking about what you have to do when you get where
> > you're going.  Or what's for dinner tonight.   And as
> > KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are
> > distracted.
>
> Yes.  100% of motorists are distracted much of the time.  If you're
> not 100% devoted to piloting your vehicle you're distracted by
> definition: "1 a : diversion of the attention"http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/distraction

They sure aren't being distracted to the level claimed:

"busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating

Fecesbook or applying makeup" If you want to expand
the definition of distracted driving to include thinking about
what time you will arrive at your destination, then sure
100% are distracted. KRW made that point long ago.

> > > Exactly.  Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
> > > overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
> > > endeavor to focus on driving.
>
> > You may believe that, but I disagree.  And you're waffling
> > here by now including the modifier "not all the time".
>
> I didn't modify it you illiterate fuck.  Of course if one is
> distracted all the time they're probably going to crash, and pretty
> quick.

Well then why are you disputing that above when I
said if most people were driving distracted we should
see wrecks all over the place everywhere we go,
all the time? The fact that we don't says you're the
ignorant fuck who dug himself into a hole and continues
to dig away.

>
> > If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time
> > or another while driving,  I would agree with that.
> > But again, what you said was:
>
> > "Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> > twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
> > this
> > is actually a good idea. "
>
> I did not write that.

OK, but you quickly defended it and continue to defend it to
the point that you obviously now own it.

>
> What I first said was:
> "Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task
> is
> easily.... well, you can't fucking miss it unless you have no idea of
> what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far

> greater than very likely."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/38125746a5857f02?h...

Which was in response to KRW asking for proof of this:

"most driverrs are busy texting, sexting, blogging,

twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Sounds to me like you bought into the statement and
defended it as true. And that is exactly what you've
continued to do, beyond question. My first post in this
called the above statement an exaggeration. You
responded with:

"It isn't exaggeration. "

So, make up your mind.

>
> > The relatively low number of accidents that happen
> > per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest
> > to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by
> > the likes of the serious distractions on your list.
> > If they were, accidents would be
> > happening at 100 times the rate they are.
>
> That's not my list.

It sure as hell is. When I said the statement was an
exaggeration, you said "It isn't an exaggeration".
Geez.....

[Harry K]

On Aug 7, 7:09 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> On Aug 6, 9:07 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> > > > I cite their speeds.  Nothing there to suggest they are paying
> > > > attention.  Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
> > > > speed limits?
>
> > > Again strawman and you're wandering off here.  Sure people speed
> > > but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
> > > because they are distracted.
>
> > That's what you say.
>
> I'm beginning to agree with KRW that there must be
> something wrong with you.   You're actually claiming that
> the reason most people speed is because they are
> distracted?  Not that they know what the speed limit
> is, but consciously go faster?   Good grief.  I can
> take you down the Parkway here in NJ.  Where the
> speed limit is 55mph,, 90%+ of the cars are going
> 65+.  All distracted?  Of course not.  They just know
> that the cops give at least a 10mph leeway and
> choose to go faster, with the flow of trafffic because
> it's a reasonable, safe speed that feels comfortable.
> I do it all the time myself and I'm not texting or updating
> facebook.  Do you really drive much?
>

<snip>

I've beend driving for som 60 plus years and I don't think I have
_ever_ seen the normal flow at or under the posted. It is _always_
over it by some margin. I suppose given enough resources some
jurisdiction in some universe far far away could do an emphasis long
enough and strong enough to get ehe "flow" down to or under the
posted....for a short time.

Harry K

[gpsman]

On Aug 6, 1:00 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
> >considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
> >can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.
>
> You won't ever change it either.

It certainly appears that way. The emphasis has long been on making
vehicles and roads more safe for crashing.

The average motorist is so stupid they wouldn't wear a seat belt until
laws were passed requiring it, and it seems to have peaked at 86% and
is dropping.
(PDF 1.3MB) http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811544.pdf.

> Many people talk on cells, hold
> conversations with passengers, etc.  They don't think anything of it,
> and probably won't recognize their inattention to driving caused an
> accident.

That's because every crash is widely considered "accidental",
regardless of "willful misconduct" as the FHWA calls it. Crashes by
drunks and those fleeing police are reported as accidents. In one
instance not too long ago the NYT reported a guy who deliberately and
with malice aforethought "accidentally" ran over (or into) a guy (or
his gf, I forget, I should have saved that link).

> Some people do multi-task better than others, but you
> really can't take your eyes off the road.

Figuratively. Gauges, mirrors, signs. Keeping your eyes moving is
central to situational awareness.

> I do long trips with my wife, and we converse.  But often I just say
> "wait' and turn her off.  It's situational.
> She's drives pretty much the same way.

We help drive most of the time, as does just about everyone I know.

One of my relationship requirements is a defensive driver. I couldn't
respect her if she drove like every other nitwit, and I couldn't stand
the worry when she was driving by herself.

> Diving is a bit of work for me, but I use methods to make it more
> enjoyable.  Mostly figuring traffic patterns to stay as far away from
> other vehicles as possible.

Whatever you do to keep your head in the game is a good thing.
Driving is widely considered by the unconsciously incompetent to be a
matter of reaction times and assumed infallibility while the highly
skilled avoid the circumstances that lead to using their higher
skills.

> It's kind of fun to know exactly what somebody will do before they
> even do it.  Can't count the times I've said, "He'll switch lanes,
> then switch right back."  Then he does it.

As long as you're not distracted. The funny thing about driving
distractions is they can be and often are driving-related; 1 nitwit
can distract from the more dangerous, or vulnerable nitwit. Human
attention and visual perception are very funny and complicated things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

We've all experienced failing to see what is right in front of our
noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
they possess, rarely varies.

> I'm sure my wife is bored with it, but she does like my driving style.

Sounds like you probably have a pretty good record and chance of
escaping becoming victims of the mayhem.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Aug 7, 10:09 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> On Aug 6, 9:07 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
> > > > evidence most motorists are not distracted.
>
> > > The best evidence is the low rate of accidents.
>
> > "Low"... compared to what?
>
> Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
> see if 51%+ of all drivers
> were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
> twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".

You're too stupid to add to my collection of nitwits, if I still
collected nitwits.
-----

- gpsman

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
wrote:

You forgot how after you found yourself.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Aug 7, 11:12 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.
>
> The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
> they possess, rarely varies.
>

Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. Following
that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
driver behind the wheel for the first time.

But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
established as fact, regardless. And next you'll be
demanding that unless someone else can prove it
false, it's true.

[Duesenberg]

On 8/4/2012 2:11 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:59:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd <non...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2012 07:10 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Back in the 80's I was running service calls around The Southeast and
>>>>> put 70k miles on a six cylinder Ford Econoline in a single year. ^_^
>>>>
>>>> I have 107K on my 2001 (20K in the last 8 months). ;-)
>>>
>>> Meanwhile I, who live on one side of a duplex and work in the other side,
>>> put less than 3,000 miles per year on my little pick-up. Still, it galls me
>>> to pay the north side of $40 for a fill-up once a month...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier
>> highest of($4.00 / gal).
>
> I had a 65$ "fillup" recently. I had my 2-1/2 gallon mower can with me, but
> still... Gas here has jumped $.50 in the last month ($.25 in the last week).
>

I spend $75 a week for commuting in gas and about $250 a month for toll
hiways. Yes the income earned is worth it but in about 2 or 2 1/2
years, I'll take the $30 000 a year pay cut and work in my hometown.
Factoring in insurance and wear and tear plus maintenance on the
automobile then the gas and toll hiway charges, it's about $10 000 a
year for transportation, maybe more just for that larger salary gain of
say $30 000.

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

[Duesenberg]

On 8/6/2012 5:14 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:


> Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
> necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
> much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
> speed traps).
>

How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for
problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken
away sooner?

I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if
this is what you mean by "better enforcement"

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:52:07 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Aug 7, 11:12�am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.
>>
>> The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
>> they possess, rarely varies.
>>
>
>Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. Following
>that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
>experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
>doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
>driver behind the wheel for the first time.

Professional race drivers.

>But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
>established as fact, regardless. And next you'll be
>demanding that unless someone else can prove it
>false, it's true.

The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for
over forty years.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:09:32 -0400, Duesenberg <a...@123.com> wrote:

>On 8/6/2012 5:14 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>
>> Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
>> necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
>> much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
>> speed traps).
>>
>
>How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for
>problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken
>away sooner?

Cops looking for more problem drivers. Texting is already against the law,
under the distracted driving laws. Other issues are a little harder sell but
the idea is the same. Turning or lane-change without a signal is already an
infraction. There are tons...

No, I'm not advocating the yanking of licenses, except as a last resort (the
points system already takes care of that).

>I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if
>this is what you mean by "better enforcement"

More is probably a more precise word (fewer meanings).

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Sure but my solution is to move where the job is. I'm commuting now, for
various reasons but that'll stop Oct 1 when I finally get my wife moved here.
We may be traveling back and forth on the weekends after that until we can get
that house on the market.

>When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
>extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. It is a PITA.

[The Daring Dufas]

I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need
things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o

TDD

[Domicile Dude]

On 8/7/2012 10:35 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

>
> The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for
> over forty years.
>

Hah! You want a link?

And FWIW, don't eat the cheese cuz it expired in 2006

Here you go:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060401.html

[gpsman]

On Aug 7, 6:52 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> On Aug 7, 11:12 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.

Your snipping exhibits your dedication to accuracy.

> > The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill
> > they possess, rarely varies.
>
> Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact.  Following
> that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years
> experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's
> doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative
> driver behind the wheel for the first time.

Now, THAT is a straw man.

You discarded the word "exhibit" and wah-fucking-la!, you think you
have forwarded a logical argument.

And, you eliminated one "driver" by introducing a "student"... "behind

the wheel for the first time".

> But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is
> established as fact, regardless.  And next you'll be
> demanding that unless someone else can prove it
> false, it's true.

Many times the newly licensed driver is a far "better" (safer) driver
than those with many years of experience. Statistically, new truck
drivers are involved in more "bump" incidents while those with all the
experience are -far- more often involved in the catastrophic crashes.
-----

- gpsman

[bob haller]

> >> When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for
> >> extra income.  Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.
>
> > Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it.  It is a PITA.
>
> I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need
> things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o
>
> TDD

its great in good weather but the pits in snow.....

but I have been on the road my entire life fixing office machines.

If someone gave me a office and required me to be there I would go
stir crazy.....

everday is different i never know what I will be doing

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 05:20:05 -0400, Domicile Dude <domici...@A0L.C0M>
wrote:

...and that proves exactly what, HomoGay?