 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / August 2008Cell phone junkies are as bad as drunks!
This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC SAFETY IS NOT IN THEIR LIST OF PRIORITIES. And since junkies and drunks put others at risk, we must place them in the "most wanted" list of criminals. Oh, the authorities and politicians could be their accomplices if this were a court of justice. Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving "A student talks on a hands-free cell phone while operating a high- tech driving simulator. The simulator was used during a University of Utah study that found motorists who talk on cell phones while driving are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the legal limit of 0.08 percent." http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1 NOTE: Some states are found to be totally innocent since they have passed cell phone restrictions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking" http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88 WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE (beware of the lion) http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to drive more relaxed and in control after a few drinks. If someone is unlucky enough to get killed by a drunk driver, then it was fate. Most of the losers who are drunk driving activists only become concerned when it hits home, and one of their kin gets wiped out. Before that, they didn't much give a sh.t. > Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is > often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to > drive more relaxed and in control after a few drinks. Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." Whether or not the driver is "more relaxed" is irrelevant - I don't care how the people I'm sharing the road with are feeling at the moment, what I care about is how well they are driving. How they're feeling might affect that, but it's NOT the primary indicator of what we're after. > If someone is unlucky enough to get killed by a drunk driver, then > it was fate. More nonsense; what is this "fate" you're talking about, beyond being some nice figment of your imagination which might absolve the drunk driver from responsibility for their actions? Bob M. > Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates > an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." Oh no....another one who believes in the "legitimate studies" that are funded and propagated by the corrupt government-influenced disinformation complex. It is in the best financial interest of the government to cover up the truth. Think about the billions that would be lost to corrupt local sheriff departments and local governments if they stopped setting up Nazi checkpoints or ticketing the fellows who only had a few beers at the local bar and then tried to make it home through the law gauntlet. Also think about the insurance lobby and the billions that insurance companies make when they raise rates due to the driver being ticketed. Insurance companies are aggresively lobbying right now all around the country for state governments to pass new laws, ticketing cellphone users behind the wheel. Not that I am against that, because cellphone users are distracted dangerous drivers....moreso than the guy who drank 3 beers. Remember this....if everyone stopped drinking and driving, the law is so corrupt, that they would begin rigging the breath-alizers (sp?) to give false readings on sober individuals so they could continue to reap fines from the innocent. Also, consider the alcohol/substance abuse forensic centers that would lose billions if the "drunk driver" wasn't court ordered to them for "alcohol education classes". It is a corrupt and evil cycle of revenue creation. More bureaucracy and more red tape intended to fill the coffers with the money of these "lawbreakers". Your child could be the next "evil lawbreaker". The founders are rolling in their graves again from all the corruption, police state policies and new legislation aimed at curtailing more rights and freedoms. Everything is a.s backwards now and It's funny how incumbents claim a successful political tenure depends upon the amount of legislation they wrote or got passed. Nearly every piece of legislation contains...more laws. More laws equals more restrictions which equals more freedoms lost somewhere along the line. Think about it and wonder where the police state is headed. On Jul 30, 10:30 am, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates > > an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." > > Oh no....another one who believes in the "legitimate studies" that are > funded and propagated by the corrupt government-influenced > disinformation complex. BUUUUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it happens, doofus, back in 1966 I helped several other SCCA racers make a film for the CHP showing the effects of even *one* drink on your driving capabilities. We first ran a slalom course for time, then adjourned to enjoy a 1 Oz. drink and repeated the course after waiting a bit for the effects to take place. We repeated this sequence three times in a row, and every single one of us got slower and more careless each time we ran the course; demonstrating rather neatly that even skilled racing drivers lost both their judgement and their coordination after drinking. Did we get "more relaxed"? You bet. Did we also lose both our good judgement and our coodination as a result of drinking, and become dangerous drivers as a result? That too. But wait!!! I'm probably only part of that vast "disinformation complex" you mentioned above. (You know: that fictional creation of drunks like you who'll say anything to rationalise their actions?) As you were. You're just too clever for the rest of us. > On Jul 30, 10:30 am, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > As you were. You're just too clever for the rest of us. Seems to me you just picked the wrong crew to test. I'll bet if you picked a bunch of bar flies who drive home regualarly after several drinks they wouldn't make the best racers either. But I'll bet they wouldn't show any dicernable level of impairment either and could drive/ride circles around a bunch of lightweight racers under the influence. To the OPs point, I agree that tickets ought only be issued for reckless op regardless of its reason. If you're struck by a drunk, a sleeper, a cell phone yapper, or a reader driving recklessly, you're just as dead. Sucking money out of the pockets of people unfortunate enough to get popped for nothing more than having beer on their breath on a Friday night is downright tyranical. > Seems to me you just picked the wrong crew to test. I'll bet if you > picked a bunch of bar flies who drive home regualarly after several > drinks they wouldn't make the best racers either. But I'll bet they > wouldn't show any dicernable level of impairment either and could > drive/ride circles around a bunch of lightweight racers under the > influence. To that point I agree. I know a really tall woman (6') who can routinely hit .40 (or 5x legal limit) and still function as nothing was wrong. I've even watched her math skills and walking. Nothing amiss. She's done it for years. By standards, she should almost be passed out or comotose. Pretty amazing to watch. For me, I know at .03-.04 I'm feeling pretty messed up to drive. Fwiw, one past conviction of a DUI in CA in 2009 and a new test reads .01 you're busted! No more .08 if you have one conviction in 2009 in California. I bought a breathalyzer at Target and it's pretty amazing to see where you find yourself goofy at. It's just affects folks differently. Cell phones? I dunno. Most seem in another space on them. Hell, I got lost in a neighborhood while on the cell. I turned off the main road to not bother others if I did some dumb-a.s manuver and just plain-a.s got lost. Should have just pulled over and stopped. B~ "saddlebag" <saddlebag@aol.com> wrote in message news:61ab5ca7-4701-4b8d-8885-Sucking money out of the pockets of people unfortunate enough to get popped for nothing more than having beer on their breath on a Friday night is downright tyranical. They feed off the people least likely to have money for fines. And they propagate a never ending cycle of suspended license drivers who have to get to work and drive under suspended license out of necessity, draining them even drier financially when they inevitably get pulled over again and again for driving under suspension and creating more revenue for the police state. The police state and penal system don't care because even if they don't reap the fine money, they can always incarcerate the violator to keep the prison industrial complex running at full steam for the CEOs who are making a fortune from the cheap prison labor and don't want to pay a living wage to regular Americans needing a job. > "saddlebag" <saddle...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fortune from the cheap prison labor and don't want to pay a living wage to > regular Americans needing a job. All you say makes sense. My advice to the fellows out there that must drink and drive: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! On Aug 4, 10:32 pm, "B. Peg" <bent_pe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > Seems to me you just picked the wrong crew to test. I'll bet if you > > picked a bunch of bar flies who drive home regualarly after several [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > B~ I wouldn't push my luck with a car, but riding a motorcycle makes me feel good after drinking. Probably the nice breeze. Still a bicycle feels funny. >> Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates >> an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." > Oh no....another one who believes in the "legitimate studies" that are > funded and propagated by the corrupt government-influenced > disinformation complex. Nope, and that's not the point here (and I suspect you know that). Let's put this in REALLY simple terms, a direct question that you might be able to answer: Can you give us ANY reason to believe that anyone would show an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks"? Bob M. > <alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bob M. I in no way will defend drunks, and I don't longer drink (yet I still can), but I challenge any of the old ladies at MADD, her phone in hand, and me with 3 Heinekens. Make it 5, slalom course, and me one hand tied. On Jul 30, 9:50 am, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote: > Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates > an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." >Oh no....another one who believes in the "legitimate studies" that are >funded and propagated by the corrupt government-influenced [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >only had a few beers at the local bar and then tried to make it home >through the law gauntlet. I often *do* think about them, but the same thing always surfaces. They're bone idle, stupid thick c.nts. Every one of them. > Also think about the insurance lobby and >the billions that insurance companies make when they raise rates due >to the driver being ticketed. Insurance companies are aggresively >lobbying right now all around the country for state governments to >pass new laws, ticketing cellphone users behind the wheel. Good for them. > Not that I >am against that, because cellphone users are distracted dangerous >drivers....moreso than the guy who drank 3 beers. f.cking bullshit. >Remember this....if >everyone stopped drinking and driving, the law is so corrupt, that >they would begin rigging the breath-alizers (sp?) to give false >readings on sober individuals so they could continue to reap fines >from the innocent. You're brain is obviously addled by drink. > Also, consider the alcohol/substance abuse >forensic centers that would lose billions if the "drunk driver" wasn't >court ordered to them for "alcohol education classes". It is a >corrupt and evil cycle of revenue creation. More bureaucracy and more >red tape intended to fill the coffers with the money of these >"lawbreakers". No need for the inverted comma's. They ARE lawbreakers. Or to put it another way. c.nts. >Your child could be the next "evil lawbreaker". Not mine. HE doesn't drink and drive. *YOURS* on the other hand most definitely will. > The >founders are rolling in their graves again from all the corruption, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >which equals more freedoms lost somewhere along the line. Think about >it and wonder where the police state is headed. Maybe you'd like to see new legislation demanding that everyone drinks and drives and it will be illegal to report an accident. c.nt.  SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > No need for the inverted comma's. They ARE lawbreakers. Or to put it another > way. c.nts. Listen Beaver, calling them c.nts isn't going to keep them from beating your a.s in front of your boyfriend, while you're begging for your cowardly little life. On Jul 30, 1:30 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Nonsense. Point to ANY legitimate study which indicates > > an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > which equals more freedoms lost somewhere along the line. Think about > it and wonder where the police state is headed. Yep, IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, and I agree with you something like an 80%. THEY DON'T WANT TO PREVENT DRUNK DRIVERS, SPEEDERS OR OTHER CRIMES AND OFFENSES. They are the MILKING COWS ($$$) to the system. Both drunks and speeders are easily caught by technology if they want. There is a gadget that prevents the car from starting when it senses alcohol. And speeders are easily caught by speed cameras if they so wished. And for the same reason ($$$) remains perfectly legal. what I care about is how well they are driving. Precisely, which is why reckless operation should be the crime and not drunk driving. If they have had too many beers, then they will drive recklessly and be arrested. > what I care about is how well they > are driving. > Precisely, which is why reckless operation should be the crime and not > drunk driving. If they have had too many beers, then they will drive > recklessly and be arrested. So despite the fact that an intake of alcohol can be expected to always have a negative effect on driving ability, we should have to wait until the idiots in question actually "drive recklessly" (and likely cause an accident, possibly killing or seriously injuring someone) before they could even POSSIBLY be held accountable for it? Again, amazing. So glad you decided to include rec.motorcycles in this; we're just getting more and more reason to believe that cage drivers are all irresponsible morons. Bob M. > <alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob M. Hey, many bikers go bar hopping. But at least they only hurt themselves, right? >> Again, amazing. So glad you decided to include >> rec.motorcycles in this; we're just getting more and more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hey, many bikers go bar hopping. But at least they only hurt > themselves, right? If needed, we can certainly discuss the difference between a "biker" and a "motorcyclist," but I suspect that distinction may be lost on you. Bob M. > >> Again, amazing. So glad you decided to include > >> rec.motorcycles in this; we're just getting more and more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bob M. Bikers wear black and ignore the laws? Or is it the other way around? > > "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yep he pegged you for a rube. Not to bright of one either. > More nonsense; what is this "fate" you're talking about, > beyond being some nice figment of your imagination which > might absolve the drunk driver from responsibility for > their actions? If someone is unlucky enough to avoid the reckless driver, then it was their turn to die. > If someone is unlucky enough to avoid the reckless > driver, then it was their turn to die. OK, so now I just have to ask - how old are you, really? And if you are going to respond with any number over, say, 17, I'd ask the follow-up question: how have you managed to elude your keepers in order to post this lunacy? Bob M. >> More nonsense; what is this "fate" you're talking about, >> beyond being some nice figment of your imagination which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If someone is unlucky enough to avoid the reckless driver, then it was >their turn to die. Your logic escapes me. If they avoid the wreckless driver, then how do they die and how are they unlucky - save for having to remain in this world with people like Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS? "Like, how bad a president is George Bush, when the country goes, 'You know, we'll try the black guy'?" --DL Hughley >> Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is >> often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >an improvement in driving ability "after a few drinks." >Whether or not the driver is "more relaxed" is irrelevant - Actually, when I was in Driver's Ed back in 1978, one of the films they showed (in addition to the graphic accident films) had a group of people doing a road course (big parking lot with orange cones) repeatedly - each time after one drink. Eventually, the 5th time you did the course, you would have had 4 'drinks'. Some people DID do better after ONE drink but rapidly deteriorated after that. The theory was that they were nervous on the first run. Mind you, that was a small fraction of the dozen or so people in the film taking the tests. Wasn't a bad message for 1978 - that anything more than one drink and you were a danger to others on the road and yourself. This was in the pre-MADD days. +------[E-mail addr here to prevent e-spam]--------+|dj [aka] djlong@magic.mv.com [and] djlong@msn.com |+----------[Sig abbreviated for policy]------------+ On Jul 30, 12:45 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is > often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > become concerned when it hits home, and one of their kin gets wiped > out. Before that, they didn't much give a sh.t. This kind of answers your question. I answer below... Originally Posted by nkuvu I don't have the source handy, but there was an article I read a while back which found that people talking on a cell phone had worse reaction times than people who were drunk. It was a publication in the UK if I recall correctly, maybe someone else has seen it and knows the study I'm referring to. *** And I'm sure there's phsychological dimension to it. Drunks KNOW they are more dangerous and may reduce their speed accordingly (that's what I did anyway when I used to drink), while cell phone junkies ignore (or don't give a damn) that they are that much more unsafe. On Jul 30, 1:14 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:04323e2f-d4b3-4a9f-b4ea-b52c0e54d55d@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course not. The cell phone industry and the auto industry pay our > congressmen big money to leave the cell-phone-driving issue alone. Man, you have a way to say things in a crude yet precise way. "Cell phone naggers are as bad as hemorrhoids!" Should we assume from that that they are a pain in the a.s? On Jul 30, 10:20 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Of course not. The cell phone industry and the auto industry pay our > > congressmen big money to leave the cell-phone-driving issue alone. But the auto insurance companies and law enforcement are lobbying against the cellphone industry on this. Guess who is going to win? Also, the cellphone industry is doing everything in their power to avoid the connection between the 5 GB transmission frequencies of later model cellphones and the extinction of the honeybee population. 90% of honeybees have become extinct in the past several years since cellphone transmission went to ultra high frequencies. The bees radar operates in that band range. > Also, the cellphone industry is doing everything in their power to > avoid the connection between the 5 GB transmission frequencies of > later model cellphones and the extinction of the honeybee population. > 90% of honeybees have become extinct in the past several years since > cellphone transmission went to ultra high frequencies. The bees radar > operates in that band range. This would be right up there at the top of my list of "funniest things I've read on the interwebbernet yet this year," if I didn't have this rather upsetting suspicion that you are actually serious and believe that honeybees use RF to navigate. As it is, I think you've simply confirmed what was already clear to the rest of us - your complete willingness to post utterly ridiculous comments regarding a subject about which you know nothing and have zero experience. Bob M. > This would be right up there at the top of my list of > "funniest things I've read on the interwebbernet yet > this year," if I didn't have this rather upsetting suspicion > that you are actually serious and believe that honeybees > use RF to navigate. The cellphone HF move up to 5 GH several years ago is affecting their navigational ability. Also, the fact that you have never heard about this, even though it has been theorized by thousands of scientists over the past few years, just proves your ignorance and that the cellphone industry has been successful in keeping the sheeple (you) from knowing about it. Sheesh, just do a Google search....millions of hits on the subject. Here is just one of many: http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2007/04/where-do-honey-bees-go-can-they-find.html On Jul 30, 12:06 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote: >> This would be right up there at the top of my list of >> "funniest things I've read on the interwebbernet yet >> this year," if I didn't have this rather upsetting suspicion >> that you are actually serious and believe that honeybees >> use RF to navigate. > The cellphone HF move up to 5 GH several years ago is affecting their > navigational ability. Also, the fact that you have never heard about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2007/04/where-do-honey-bees-go-can-they-find.html Yeah, LOTS of evidence there, all right... (Big hint: merely stating an assertion is NOT evidence in support of that assertion.) Actually, I HAVE heard about this crackpot notion, but I also have both the training and experience to know that it IS nonsense. Once more, again in hopefully, simple, easy-for-you-to- comprehend form: can you provide ANY reasoning or evidence that would support the notion that honeybees navigate through the use of RF "radar"? Bob M. > Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is > often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to > drive more relaxed and in control after a few drinks. ONLY a c.nt who drinks and can't be arsed finding another way to get home would think that. > If someone is unlucky enough to get killed by a drunk driver, then > it was fate. Oh, I REALLY hope you're the father of the son who gets mulched by a drunk driver. > Most of the losers who are drunk driving activists only > become concerned when it hits home, and one of their kin gets wiped > out. Before that, they didn't much give a sh.t. A bit like you then? c.nt. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 that should stand for Beaver instead of Beavis in your case, since you're such a fuckin little pussyboy. > <alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > A bit like you then? c.nt. > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > (beware of the lion)http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote The latest craze I've seen on the road is people who text while driving. That, I would say, is even more of a distraction than simply talking on the phone. Nick Portland, OR On Jul 30, 11:45�am, NickandElise8...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians > > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I saw a guy driving while playing the guitar and steering with his foot. > I saw a guy driving while playing the guitar and > steering with his foot. Wow - I can't even play the guitar with BOTH feet, let alone play AND steer with one. Oh, wait...you meant....never mind.... Bob M. > > I saw a guy driving while playing the guitar and > > steering with his foot. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bob M. That's nothing. Soccer moms manage to chat on the phone while changing the pamper of the baby, and keeping an eye on the other kids. And they drive the infamous SUV that are most deadly! But they are nice moms, huh? ;) > On Jul 30, 11:45 am, NickandElise8...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Did you stay close enough to his car to hear the song? >(a bunch of whining garbage...) Geez, I'm so sick of these cell phone Nazis. We need a contest to come up with a name for these annoyances. We have NIMBYs and MFFYs and so forth and so on -- we need a name and an acronym for these people who can't talk and drive -- or is that walk and chew gum -- at the same time. SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" On Jul 30, 12:46 pm, H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote: > >(a bunch of whining garbage...) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- I put forth GAFWD (meaning "giving a f.ck while driving")... On Jul 30, 12:45 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is > often caused by drunk driving, is the problem. Many folks are able to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > become concerned when it hits home, and one of their kin gets wiped > out. Before that, they didn't much give a sh.t. Everybody does it, but they don't want to be hurt by it, right? But I think cell phone junkies are more dangerous because unlike drunks they are everywhere all the time. -KingOfTheApes > Everybody does it, but they don't want to be hurt by it, right? Everybody does what? Drive drunk? Not me! I've seen too many folks hurt by drunk drivers. > But I think cell phone junkies are more dangerous because unlike > drunks they are everywhere all the time. At least I have enough sense to pull off the road if someone calls me. > At least I have enough sense to pull off the road if someone calls me. I don't pull over if somebody calls me. If I'm busy talking, other drivers had better just stay outta my way or they might get hurt. >> At least I have enough sense to pull off the road if someone calls me. > > I don't pull over if somebody calls me. If I'm busy talking, other > drivers > had better just stay outta my way or they might get hurt. So let's see if we have this right - you're saying you have a right to knowingly engage in an activity that makes you an unsafe driver, and it's everyone ELSE'S responsibility to allow for that? Amazing. Bob M. > So let's see if we have this right - you're saying you > have a right to knowingly engage in an activity that > makes you an unsafe driver, and it's everyone ELSE'S > responsibility to allow for that? I was discussing that with someone on another list recently. Everyone feels "entitled"... they feel they deserve to break the laws because they had a bad upbringing (daddy was drunk or they weren't potty trained properly). It's never THEIR fault if something goes wrong, but *society's* fault. "Did I do that? It ain't my fault" > I was discussing that with someone on another list recently. Everyone > feels "entitled"... they feel they deserve to break the laws because they > had a bad upbringing (daddy was drunk or they weren't potty trained > properly). It's never THEIR fault if something goes wrong, but *society's* > fault. Yup. Fortunately, such incredible depths of stupidity are often self-correcting; unfortunately, these morons have a tendency to take others out along with them. Bob M. >> I was discussing that with someone on another list recently. Everyone >> feels "entitled"... they feel they deserve to break the laws because they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are often self-correcting; unfortunately, these morons > have a tendency to take others out along with them. Paging Dr Darwin ;) > On Jul 30, 12:45 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -KingOfTheApes The tell me this, I keep hearing cellphones are as bad as drunk driving, why isn't there carnage on the road? Accident and fatality rates should have skyrocketed with mass adoption of the cellphone, but they didn't. Is the statement simply false? Or is drunk driving not so bad after all? > The tell me this, I keep hearing cellphones are as bad as drunk driving, > why isn't there carnage on the road? Accident and fatality rates should > have skyrocketed with mass adoption of the cellphone, but they didn't. > Is the statement simply false? Or is drunk driving not so bad after all? Fatality rates in general had been improving for several decades, but the rate of improvement has varied. Most telling in this area is probably the fact that the fatality rates in both fatalities per vehicle- mile traveled and by fatalities as a percentage of the total population have stayed essentially constant since 1999. Prior to that point, a good part of the ongoing decline had been attributed to both stricter enforcement of drunk-driving laws and overall improvements in vehicle design. That the rate trend has stayed flat for almost a decade now, despite continued strong enforcement of drunk-driving laws and presumed continued improvement in designs, could very well be attributable to cell-phone usage as an offsetting factor. There is absolutely no question that cell phone usage is a negative in terms of peoples' abilities to control their vehicles; common sense/experience and the results of every test performed in the area confirm this. Bob M. >> The tell me this, I keep hearing cellphones are as bad as drunk >> driving, why isn't there carnage on the road? Accident and fatality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fatality rates in general had been improving for > several decades, One reason for this is cars are much safer today than in previous decades. For example, my 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 has a dash made of unpadded steel, a steering wheel with a metal horn ring, no seat belts, drum brakes, etc. Compare that to any modern car and the difference is striking. "Premier Bush" <watuziNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:B6mdne7vVq4-> One reason for this is cars are much safer today than in previous decades.> For example, my 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 has a dash made of unpadded steel, a> steering wheel with a metal horn ring, no seat belts, drum brakes, etc. Compare that to any modern car and the >difference is striking. And they should go back to making cars that have steel dashes, etc. in order to control the surplus population. > > On Jul 30, 12:45 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Drunk driving shouldn't even be a crime. Reckless operation, which is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - They are one of the worst in the civilized world. (Which puts doubts on America being civilized.) Anyway Scandinavia, the UK and even Australia have greatly improved TRAFFIC SAFETY while America stays at the bottom. The stats are everywhere, but I'm too lazy to look for it now. ; >> (a bunch of whining garbage...) > > Geez, I'm so sick of these cell phone Nazis. > > We need a contest to come up with a name for these annoyances. In much of the US, people who try to drive while talking on the phone get traffic tickets. Call them ticket holders. Racist. Oh, wait, you said "naggers". Never mind. >Racist. > >Oh, wait, you said "naggers". Never mind. You're confusing me with Randy. Heaven forbid if I had said "niggardly." SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" >> Racist. >> >> Oh, wait, you said "naggers". Never mind. > > You're confusing me with Randy. Heaven forbid if I had said > "niggardly." Or "renege." >>(a bunch of whining garbage...) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >people who can't talk and drive -- or is that walk and chew gum -- at the same >time. How about PUTZes: Phone Users Totally Zoned-out ??? SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. >>> (a bunch of whining garbage...) >> Geez, I'm so sick of these cell phone Nazis. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ??? SFB: Stone Headed Idiot Talking Forgetting Operational Rules But Running Automobile In Nagging Stupidity >:-) ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >How about PUTZes: > >Phone >Users >Totally >Zoned-out Doesn't work, for two reasons. 1.) It accepts the premise being discussed. I reject that premise. 2.) We're looking for an acronym for the anti-phone crowd, not phone users. Maybe this: Fone Users Can't Kill U SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" >>How about PUTZes: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >2.) We're looking for an acronym for the anti-phone crowd, not phone users. My post was in response to this: >>we need a name and an acronym for these >>people who can't talk and drive -- or is that walk and chew gum -- at the same >>time. If those people aren't PUTZes, I don't know who is. SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. >My post was in response to this: > >>>we need a name and an acronym for these >>>people who can't talk and drive -- or is that walk and chew gum -- at the same >>>time. Fair enough. I didn't explain myself well enough originally. Just because some people don't think they can talk and drive at the same time doesn't mean everyone can't talk and drive at the same time, and those who can't want to legislate their inadequacies onto the rest of us. My "name and acronym" suggestion really was intended for the cellphone Nazis who want to ban phone use while driving, while at the same time not forbidding the transportation of screaming kids, which to me is much more of a distraction than talking on a phone ever could be. SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" > Fair enough. I didn't explain myself well enough originally. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can't > want to legislate their inadequacies onto the rest of us. However, thinking you CAN talk and drive at the same time doesn't really mean you actually can. A lot of people think they're "more relaxed and better drivers" with a couple of beers in them, too, but if they ever actually run a test on that the results don't support that belief. I see absolutely no way that talking on a cell phone could improve your driving, and it's going to be a distraction no matter what. It MIGHT be a fairly minor distraction for some people - I suspect, though, that a lot of people think it's a smaller distraction than it really is. And unless you're committed to using a hands-free device 100% of the time, there is no way to deny that at the very least it's occupying a hand that SHOULD be available for other purposes - say, signalling, perhaps? (Not to mention the times when I've seen people drop the damn phone while driving, and suddenly seem to think that retrieving it is FAR more important than keeping their eyes and mind on the road.) You are supposed to be focused on your driving, and speaking as a motorcyclist who has to share to road with all y'all cagers... excuse me, motorists...my experience is that there are damn few people out there who are doing a very good job of that. I would have no problem at all with a law that took an unnecessary toy out of your hands while driving. Hey, I'm even OK with letting you still talk on the silly thing - what's the down side of forcing people to use a hands-free phone, if they just can't be denied their "God-given-right" to gab mindlessly while driving? Normally, I vote in favor of individual rights and responsibility, but in this case I'm going to vote in favor of continuing to breathe, and I've just seen way, way too many of you turn into inattentive zombies because you thought you just HAD to chat with someone on the cell. Bob M. > Just because some people don't think they can talk and drive at the same > time > doesn't mean everyone can't talk and drive at the same time, and those who > can't > want to legislate their inadequacies onto the rest of us. That may be true but I doubt it. If only a small percentage are incapable of using a phone while driving, then that small percentage suddenly looms large when only one of them is ten feet behind your rear wheel. Been there, and more than one time! What did we all do before the advent of the cell phone? We still managed to get through life and we were content without them. Disasters didn't overtake us because we didn't have a cell phone. It proves that we don't need to talk on phones while driving. And there are a bunch of innocent people in their graves because of those who can't drive and yack on a phone at the same time. Just like the drivers who think that they can handle the extra booze and drive because they are better at it than other drivers. My young niece is in her grave because of one of those drivers. If my cell phone rings while I'm in traffic, I ignore it until I can stop in a safe place and see who called. If I believe it's important, I will call them back. Those of us who "want to legislate our inadequacies" on others, do so because we don't want to be run down by those with lesser abilities than yours. (Actually, we want to legislate against the inadequacies of others, not our own.) For the same reason we expect the government to protect us from other people whose inadequacies cause them to think it's okay to pack a gun in your pants to handle everyday situations. It's always been this way: When something becomes a problem because a significant number of lives are lost, the government cracks down on it. You can thank those who make it necessary to legislate such laws. One more thing while I'm pontificating, here... It is now being recognized that when one is talking to another on the phone, you are there with that person - in your mind if not in physical form. And that's where the problem is. We tend to envision the subject of the conversation, which takes our mind from our driving. I found this out for myself a few years ago after finishing a lengthy phone conversation while driving home. I could not remember driving about seven miles of my journey. It seemed that one moment I was at work and the next I was at home. The bit in between was lost. That's what convinced me to drive and not yack on the phone. Hands-free phones do not take away the problem. >> Just because some people don't think they can talk and drive at the same >> time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > large when only one of them is ten feet behind your rear wheel. Been > there, and more than one time! Curious -- how do motorcyclists handle tailgaters? Speed up? Tailgating a car is bad enough... but tailgating a motorcycle is tantamount to assault IMO... brink "brink" <brinknospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Tailgating a car is bad enough... but tailgating a motorcycle is tantamount > to assault IMO... But if a biker is going too slow and holding up traffic, it's probably their own fault if they get hit from behind and wind up in the ditch. > "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Tailgating a car is bad > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But if a biker is going too slow and holding up traffic, it's probably their > own fault if they get hit from behind and wind up in the ditch. Damn you are a dim one aren't you? Not many motorcyclists are slower than traffic. IF they are it's because they see something developing up ahead that the idiots in the autos can't see. But judging by your comments you do not ride and likely have never ridden for more than a couple of days. I pity you your ignorance about everything. -- Keith Drunk driving is the same as premeditated murder > But if a biker is going too slow and holding up traffic, it's probably their > own fault if they get hit from behind and wind up in the ditch. Tell us; do you even *have* a driver's license, or have you at least heard rumors of them? I ask because the laws in all 50 States state quite clearly that that sort of accident is *always* the fault of the idiot who was following too closely, and that question is usually part of the licensing exam. Duh. On Aug 10, 11:26 pm, "albatross" <birdbf...@clinch.net> wrote: >> But if a biker is going too slow and holding up traffic, it's probably >> their >> own fault if they get hit from behind and wind up in the ditch. > > Tell us; do you even *have* a driver's license, or have you at least > heard rumors of them? Of course he has a driver's license; he drew it in study hall at junior high last semester! Bob M. > >> Just because some people don't think they can talk and drive at the same > >> time [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Curious -- how do motorcyclists handle tailgaters? Speed up? Depends on the situation. Sometimes slow down more. Some times speed up. Some times like I have done I stopped at the next stop sign got off the motorcycle tried to walk between my Goldwing (1979 GL1000) looked at the stupid cage monkey sitting in her POS Dodge Neon and made the WTF gesture, shook my head to signify that I couldn't comprehend how the army could EVERY let a stupid bitch like her in, remounted my Goldwing and rode the last block to my house. How do I know she was in the Army? She was in uniform and we were on Ft. Lewis. OBTW yes I was in uniform WITH the required reflective material (18sq.in) on. Still she wasn't as stupid or worthless as any Oregoneon driver. Those people are either asleep, driving by braile or dead. They make Bosoton drivers look good. > Tailgating a car is bad enough... but tailgating a motorcycle is tantamount > to assault IMO... I prefer to classify it as attempted homicide. But I dislike all auto drivers. I especially hate drunk drivers...DD is the same as premeditated murder and should be treated to a bullet to the head right there at the side of the road. -- Keith I have my reasons, your existance is one of them. DD is the same as premeditated murder and should be treated to a bullet to the head right there at the side of the road. I feel the same way about the mentally ill and mentally retarded. Just a burden on society, and if they climbed into a vehicle and caused a fatal accident, they would say "it's too bad he wiped out that family, but it wasn't his fault" because he's mentally ill or mentally retarded and wouldn't have to go to jail. On the other hand, the drunk driver would be crucified. There is no premeditation, dipshit. > DD is the same as > premeditated murder and should be treated to a bullet to the head [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wouldn't have to go to jail. On the other hand, the drunk driver would be > crucified. There is no premeditation, dipshit. actually the decision to get into a car/suv or on a motorcycle when drunk (as definded by law) is premeditation. Your comments about the mentally handicapped show a high level of ignorance about the mentally handicapped. -- Keith |>Your comments about the mentally handicapped show a high level of |>ignorance about the mentally handicapped. So if some retard/ irate psycho/coconut shoots you, it's OK by you....you have admitted that, so why change your comment.... > |>Your comments about the mentally handicapped show a high level of > |>ignorance about the mentally handicapped. > > So if some retard/ irate psycho/coconut shoots you, it's OK by > you....you have admitted that, so why change your comment.... Thus speaks yet another ignorant hairless unevolved ape man. S'okay bubbles you'll get your num-nums later. You worthless get. p.s. most psyco/coconuts liek you can't hit anything further than 10 feet away. Allowing for lucky shots...like the most of the shots made inside of the Killeen Luby's in 93'. How would I know? I was working in an ER there at the time. -- Keith |>On Aug 12, 1:48 am, R. LaCasse <scoo...@yamaha.info> wrote: |>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] |> |>Thus speaks yet another ignorant hairless unevolved ape man. S'okay "hairless unevolved ape man" that don't add up, but having opposable thumbs doesn't make you anything either......speak for yourself... I'm quite hairy, so that makes you a forever liar on all your conjectures..... |>bubbles you'll get your num-nums later. You worthless get. Your Limy a.s is really showing, like your Yellow Star..... |>p.s. most psyco/coconuts liek you can't hit anything further than 10 |>feet away. Allowing for lucky shots...like the most of the shots made I'm well over 60,000 rounds above you, and I ain't what you would like to picture me as........you don't even know a thing about the "coconut" bimbos, you keep your ignorance to your own race... |>inside of the Killeen Luby's in 93'. How would I know? I was working |>in an ER there at the time. What the hell is that supposed to signify....you Tx think the whole world is a piece of....your imagination, I deal which a lot of dopers here too, they are street fighters by pride, and aren't too capable with guns for the majority. For the those who can't remember the KL incident: ----------------- The mass killing occurred shortly after George Hennard drove his truck through the window of the cafeteria's dining area during the lunch hour October 16, 1991. Moving through a group of more than 100 people, he killed 23 and wounded 20 others before killing himself. The restaurant's 34 employees have been offered jobs at other Luby's restaurants. Luby's operates more than 200 restaurants in 10 states, with about three-quarters of them in Texas. ------------------ Given all this ammo to your favor, what does an ER know about firearms activities in relation to f.cked up street shooters........I suppose you were at Waco, as well as Ruby Ridge.....W.O.T. So take your proctozone in hydrocortisone acetate up your personal insulting anal orphus....and if a fuckup like George Hennard should take your life, you ((can forgive him again)) for being a "psychotic" problem sh.t....... I say any offensive "psychotic" mental case should NOT be on the road in the 1st place, but then that's all the 2nd isn't it, with the revocation all VA for CCW/CCP/CHL/ATC...... > |>On Aug 12, 1:48 am, R. LaCasse <scoo...@yamaha.info> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm quite hairy, so that makes you a forever liar on all your > conjectures..... Obviously you lack an actual edumacation. Typical of your type. Free clue HomoSapiens IS a hairless ape. Compared to your bretheren your species IS hairless. Kind of like the chinese crested. > |>bubbles you'll get your num-nums later. You worthless get. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm well over 60,000 rounds above you, and I ain't what you would > like to picture me as........you don't even know a thing about the "coconut" Yeah I suppose having been combat arms I wouldn't know that. My bad Deputy Dawg. I suppose buring 3,000rds of .308 a day at least once a month means don't and can't shoot. I've a fair bit less in .50BMG and hella more in 5.56mm, 9mm and plenty of .45ACP. Yep don't know nuthin' bout nuthin'. No siree. > bimbos, you keep your ignorance to your own race... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > too, they are street fighters by pride, and aren't too capable with guns for > the majority. SO WHAT? I've got meth heads everywhere...not hard to deal with unless you are some over tesosteroned cop. > For the those who can't remember the KL incident: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Given all this ammo to your favor, what does an ER know about > firearms activities in relation to f.cked up street shooters I dunno I joined uncle sam in 1983 left in 03 and I can safely say one of the few things I didn't shoot was a mark 19 (damn it) Yes that includes 155mm 8" (so there my balls are bigger) I've shot most everything far mroe than you'll guess. I've shot the 1911A1 and M92F enough to know that I prefer the 1911A1 for ANY situation. M3's are easier to handle than the pissant MAC10. I know that shooting quail is better training for shotgun than a hogans alley and I also know that at the range the police are good. On the street only marginally better than the criminals. > suppose you were at Waco, as well as Ruby Ridge.....W.O.T. Waco? Just up the road I knew a couple of the crewmen whose tank was signed out by the FBI. ATF was a joke then and still might be. THEY screwed the pooch by not taking the dink down in town. > So take your proctozone in hydrocortisone acetate up your personal > insulting anal orphus....and if a fuckup like George Hennard should take > your life, you ((can forgive him again)) for being a "psychotic" problem > sh.t....... Again you are talking out your a.s. Obviously you have an inability to COMPREHEND what you read. Anywho the last psychotic wasn't crazy perse. But it's not the first time I've seen alcohol induced psychosis. I calmed him down, got him nice and comliant so I could take some blood. Then turned him back to the MP's who promptly like most stupid cops screwed up the entire situation and set him off again...dumb a.s cops. > I say any offensive "psychotic" mental case should NOT be on the > road in the 1st place, but then that's all the 2nd isn't it, with the > revocation all VA for CCW/CCP/CHL/ATC...... What ever. Nobody can take mine. Not the police, highway patrol etc. They are good I'm better. 8^) I especially love it when a political busybody starts things. I sit back and laugh...you just have to know the right buttons to start their meltdown. p.s. Obviously you don't know the difference between mentaly handicaped and insane. Then again you apparetly are a stupid screaming cage monkey. Guts like you end up in little podunk towns with only 3,000 people and everyone hates twitch like you. -- Keith |>On Aug 13, 5:54 pm, Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote: |>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:44:07 -0700 (PDT), "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] |>cage monkey. Guts like you end up in little podunk towns with only |>3,000 people and everyone hates twitch like you. I know a lot of guys like you, MPs, VA, most are my clients,........ still can't figure all of them out yet for what it matters...... A cell phone is good to have in an emergency t5hat can't be handled roadside, but since roadside assistance is not (insurance) available here for motorcycles (hoist), having a pay-per-talk cell phone is useful without breaking the bank....... There's a bright side to the (cell phone naggers ), since the world is swamped with iPOD cell phoneners, you can always borrow one for a call in an emergency, if you drop them a couple of bux........ SNIP > I know a lot of guys like you, MPs, VA, most are my clients,........ > still can't figure all of them out yet for what it matters...... Don't worry, many come to people like you and others to understand themselves. Undstanding only gives them a handle on WHAT to do. How is problematc from what I've seen. Some can, some can't. It takes dicipline and a strong grip and that doesn't always do it for some. The ones who never get a handle seem to end up either homeless and hasseled and/or addicted to drugs. The others fight a constant battle with themselves. All you can do is try. From what I can tell you do keep trying...eve if you can't figure them out. Don't try, instead try to help THEM figure it out. Maybe then they can make progress to functionality. There are no miracles and no god to do it for them. They have to seize the problem by the balls and bring it to bay. > A cell phone is good to have in an emergency t5hat can't be handled > roadside, but since roadside assistance is not (insurance) available here > for motorcycles (hoist), having a pay-per-talk cell phone is useful without > breaking the bank....... If you say so. I can't stand the things, too much a leash. As I'm sure you have seen some dogs can't be leashed. > There's a bright side to the (cell phone naggers ), since the world > is swamped with iPOD cell phoneners, you can always borrow one for a call in > an emergency, if you drop them a couple of bux........ f.ck'em if they wont share. I stop for every motorcycle I see stopped. If the need help I do what I can OR I get them help. My own geriatric rat truck (long may it drip oil and run well) or a UHaul. We live in the outback of nowhere Montana and those pissant cellphones do not get good reception, espcially when in the rock mountains. 8^( Sucks to be a loser hooked on a cell phone in my experience and don't get me started on pussies with a GPS that get lost. -- Keith |>> an emergency, if you drop them a couple of bux........ |> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] |>-- |>Keith I'd pay for the convenience of a rescue cell phone they are leashed to.... Outback of nowhere Montana? Do yo go to the same "range" shooting area as Nathan W. Collier....you know CCW this and all carry habits? Bob >Curious -- how do motorcyclists handle tailgaters? Speed up? As S'mee says, it depends. If I see someone coming up behind me on a multilane highway, I'll try to get out of their way so they don't have to tailgate me. Speeding up is one of the last options. I prefer to "act crazy." I swerve back and forth in my lane a few times. That usually wakes up the dumb cager who wasn't paying attention. My rear brake light is adjusted so the light comes on before the brake does, so I can tap my rear brake without slowing down. If I see the person is just being a jerk, (as opposed to stupid or psychopathic,) I may slow down. Depending on the location and circumstances, that means as slow as the following distance is safe (ie, 10mph/car length.) SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer "brink" <brinknospam@hotmail.com> wrote in news:6g9oieFee3gvU4 @mid.individual.net: > Curious -- how do motorcyclists handle tailgaters? Speed up? Swerve... Swerve violently and without warning. Makes the idiot think they just missed something they were unable to see because they were too close. Far more so than hitting the brake lights I've had this technique work. SignatureRCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > "brink" <brinknos...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:6g9oieFee3gvU4 > @mid.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Far more so than hitting the brake lights I've had this technique work. Oh yesss, that one. I'd almost forgotten it. Possibly because I haven't had need of it since I moved out of Washington. -- Keith NBA coming late September early Octember "S'mee" <stevenkeith2@hotmail.com> wrote in news:629bb857-5d30-4014-85f4- 329ac73e48f4@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Oh yesss, that one. I'd almost forgotten it. Possibly because I > haven't had need of it since I moved out of Washington. I guess the Californicators don't get too far off the Interstate up there... Here, they've pretty much infested the place. So much so that this burg has taken on the moniker, "Bozangeles". SignatureRCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:629bb857-5d30-4014-85f4- > 329ac73e4...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there... Here, they've pretty much infested the place. So much so that > this burg has taken on the moniker, "Bozangeles". My deepest sympathies then. Missed you last month...didn't anounce anything either. We've a few up here but they'd rather not act like calipornicators. ;^) Did I mention SWMBO'd is getting a something in late sept, late oct time frame? It'll be blue, she's the first in line AND I need to buy a lubeman or similar. ;^) -- Keith "S'mee" <stevenkeith2@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c14f59f6-4a66-48fb-a9f6- 79cbc57d5813@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > My deepest sympathies then. Missed you last month... Yup... Kept expecting further news via back channels but never heard from you. As I recall it was the 24th? I was in town that day. > Did I mention SWMBO'd is getting a something in late sept, late oct > time frame? It'll be blue, she's the first in line AND I need to buy a > lubeman or similar. ;^) Huh?? SignatureRCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c14f59f6-4a66-48fb-a9f6- > 79cbc57d5...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yup... Kept expecting further news via back channels but never heard > from you. As I recall it was the 24th? I was in town that day. uh, if you recall I had a catastrophic HD failure/active viral attack. I lost ALL of your info. Damn, maybe I ought to go back to keeping stuff like that on paper, papiri, stone, tattoo's...something. > > Did I mention SWMBO'd is getting a something in late sept, late oct > > time frame? It'll be blue, she's the first in line AND I need to buy a > > lubeman or similar. ;^) > > Huh?? You do still have the q.com addy right? OR...damn there is a offsite storage sight I completely didn't even consider. <BLUSH> Uh, did the room get brighter or am I blushing that bad? -- Keith On Jul 31, 11:25 am, H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote: > >My post was in response to this: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > transportation of screaming kids, which to me is much more of a distraction than > talking on a phone ever could be. If you want to keep cell phones legal, then go ahead and make drunks drive the way they can. It's pretty Nazi too to pick on them. But it's discriminatory to pick on the drunks and not on the junkies. On Jul 31, 9:08 am, H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote: > >How about PUTZes: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" How about PISS (Parents Incensed at Stupid DriverS on the phone)? And we should have a motto too: "PHONE USERS ARE PHONY DRIVERS." >How about PISS (Parents Incensed at Stupid DriverS on the phone)? > >And we should have a motto too: "PHONE USERS ARE PHONY DRIVERS." Sounds like you accept the premise, too. I don't accept the premise that my driving skills are degraded if I am talking on the phone. SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" > I don't accept the premise that my driving skills are degraded if I am > talking > on the phone. Would you be willing to put that to the test, and abide by the results? It's not that hard to actually find out, you know. Bob M. >Would you be willing to put that to the test, and abide >by the results? It's not that hard to actually find out, you >know. I'd be willing to take some kind of test, and I would even allow myself to be surprised by the results if they are not what I expect. Would parents with screaming children in the backseat, smokers who insist on lighting up while behind the wheel, or people who eat or drink (non-alcoholic beverages) be willing to do the same? SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" > Would parents with screaming children in the backseat, smokers who insist > on > lighting up while behind the wheel, or people who eat or drink > (non-alcoholic > beverages) be willing to do the same? I can't speak for any of the others, but I sure would. I don't smoke, and if I have little kids in the car (rarely, these days - mine's 17) they either behave themselves or we pull over. I will admit to eating and drinking in the car on rare occasion (never on the bike, of course), and would be willing to test my abilities. I do NOT eat or drink in the car until and unless I am on a long, uninterrupted stretch of highway - e.g., it's not something I do on city streets. At that, though, I would have to note one difference between eating/drinking and blabbing on the cell - in the case of the former, it's really, REALLY easy to PUT THE DAMNED THING DOWN when need be. Bob M. >I can't speak for any of the others, but I sure would. >I don't smoke, and if I have little kids in the car (rarely, these [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >former, it's really, REALLY easy to PUT THE DAMNED >THING DOWN when need be. If I am in a difficult position on the road and am talking on my cell phone, I will tell the caller, "Hold on, I need to turn/merge/park/back up/change lanes/etc." and will do so, and will resume the conversation when it is safe to do so. I try to use common sense when talking on the phone while driving. I don't talk when I am in a trying situation on the highway. I also use common sense concerning drinking and driving -- I don't do it. I don't need or want the government substituting its judgment for my good common sense and judgment when it comes to having a conversation with someone while driving. SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" > I try to use common sense when talking on the phone while driving. I don't > talk when I am in a trying situation on the highway. > > I also use common sense concerning drinking and driving -- I don't do it. Shame you don't stop using the mobile as well. > I don't need or want the government substituting its judgment for my good > common sense and judgment when it comes to having a conversation with > someone while driving. Yes you do. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." >Shame you don't stop using the mobile as well. Aah, another Kool-Aid drinker. >> I don't need or want the government substituting its judgment for my good >> common sense and judgment when it comes to having a conversation with >> someone while driving. > >Yes you do. Nope, I don't. Not the Commonwealth of Kentucky nor the United States Congress nor you. You're an idiot. You're also the weakest link. G'bye. *plonk* SignatureTo reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" >>> I don't need or want the government substituting its judgment for my >>> good [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Congress > nor you. You're an idiot. You're also the weakest link. G'bye. I don't think TOG is an idiot; just another motorcyclist who, like me, has seen far too many morons on cell phones behaving badly while at the wheel to simply trust in their "good common sense and judgement." "Common sense" is far too UNcommon for that; you may be the exception, or you may just think you are, but either way it's irrelevant - there are far, far too many people out there who are NOT exercising their common sense to simply leave it up to that. Hell, if "trusting common sense and judgement" was always a workable solution, what would be the need for ANY traffic laws? Or almost any laws at all, for that matter? Bob M. > *plonk* > I don't think TOG is an idiot; just another motorcyclist who, > like me, has seen far too many morons on cell phones [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are far, far too many people out there who are NOT exercising > their common sense to simply leave it up to that. *Ding* SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." On Jul 31, 3:04 pm, H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote: > >I can't speak for any of the others, but I sure would. > >I don't smoke, and if I have little kids in the car (rarely, these [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > sense and judgment when it comes to having a conversation with someone while > driving. That's right, the right to cause death and mayhem to innocent people is more important than any regulation the government may impose on you to save lives. On Jul 31, 11:27 am, H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote: > >How about PISS (Parents Incensed at Stupid DriverS on the phone)? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't accept the premise that my driving skills are degraded if I am talking > on the phone. You must be in denial. Drunks do that too. But at least drunks got the AA. What about cell phones, CPA? > This is a study from 2006, but since the authorities and politicians > have not acted on it or even talked about it, we must assume TRAFFIC [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are as impaired as drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels at the > legal limit of 0.08 percent." One interesting facet is the states that have enacted laws requiring hands-free cellphone setups. I believe the studies have shown that hands-free setups are _barely_ any safer than simpler setups -- I suppose because people are mentally distracted whether or not they are looking straight ahead and have both hands on the wheel. I think the new generation of phones is worse than the old. "Texting" requires one to look down at the phone. My iPhone has no tactile feedback and you can't feel the keys (because there aren't any--just a touchscreen). This is even MORE dangerous to try to operate while driving. I decline to indicate whether I have successfully read and responded to my e-mails while driving down a two-lane highway with intermittent traffic coming the other way. It isn't hard for me to believe that a cellphone is more dangerous than a few beers. It sounds very plausible. On Jul 31, 5:50 pm, "Mark C." <krucam...@verizonRMV.net> wrote: > "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Just be happy... Hey, that calls for a few drinks while driving! Party like it's 1999 until you get stopped by the police or kill someone. Cheers! On Jul 30, 10:11 am, KingOfTheApes Idot trolling cage monkey describes a miscreant like you. Anyways, it's been proven ALL cell phone users are liberals, suck their thumbs when nobody is watching and solicit strangers in bathrooms for S&M sex. Oh just incase you didn't guess...I not only threw away my leash years ago (cell phonne) but all the Credit cards entanglements also. The amazing part is when I did that I could think again, women and girls were attracted to me, my dick gained in teh one dimension women crave (girth) and best of all. I finally got to look somes liberals and conservatives in the eye and say. "Piss off you c.nts not a one of you served your country in any way expcet to sit on you obese, bloated, festing fat a.ses and complain that the president was on and you were going to miss Magnum P.I." You lot (yes you thou miss named king of the apes) are not even worth of being a hangnail on those said losers, and the others like you. You couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the bottom of the boot. You bare foot waste of resources. -- Keith and waddayahnose a real name. Unlike the cowards of KOTA ilk. > On Jul 30, 10:11 am, KingOfTheApes > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Keith > and waddayahnose a real name. Unlike the cowards of KOTA ilk. You don't even put together a cohesive sentence. But your rage at monkeys should address the real dangerous ones... http://www.bartcop.com/ugly-chimp.jpg Originally Posted by Trackerway "I totally agree that a federal law should be passed banning cell phone use while driving. And cops should be allowed to pull over anyone they see talking on a cell phone, it shouldn't be one of those 'secondary offenses' where they have to have another reason (i.e. speeding) to pull you over." I totally agree that they should be prosecuted, but there's another dimension to it: THE SOCIAL DIMENSION. Few in society would justify the "drunks" (though at one point or another many of us do it), but cell phones junkies are often seen as a sign of "status." Actually they almost go hand in hand with the SUV, meaning "I have money to burn, and I do whatever the f.ck I want." :( So when we see it them as "junkies" and not "success stories," we may perhaps start seeing a tidal change. Of course, then enforcement would take care of the real hardcore junkies. "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in > "I totally agree that a federal law should be passed banning cell phone use while driving. And cops should be allowed to pull over anyone they see talking on a cell phone, it shouldn't be one of those > 'secondary offenses' where they have to have another reason (i.e. speeding) to pull you over." I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking. It depends on the degree of inebriation and each driver is different. If able, I would eliminate all drunk driver laws and even allow drinking behind the wheel. Reckless operation is the bane. On Aug 3, 1:51 pm, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pete That's in the UK, but in America we've got another problem: LOUD COMMERCIALS, a lot of them. Yeah, in the middle of Penny Lane and California Dreaming, they start shouting that you should buy a Toyota or get a McDonald's burger for 25 cents (and the french fries for 2 bucks), so you either change the station (accident risk) or crash... I know in Germany commercials on TV are regulated to something like 12 min. an hour, but don't know in other civilized places. Interesting subject, no? > "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in > "I totally agree > that a federal law should be passed banning cell phone use while driving. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > eliminate all drunk driver laws and even allow drinking behind the wheel. > Reckless operation is the bane. Man, hard to convince the people that drunks that drive are OK, even when most of the same people drink and drive. You know, HYPOCRISY IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. Just look at other "evils" like drugs and prostitution... ;) But even in "civilized places" like Germany, you won't get away with that. And cell phone junkies won't get away with it either, which makes their laws fair and cohesive. So I say, don't drink and drive, but if you drink, catch a taxi, bus or ride a bike. Have you ever tried to ride a bicycle while intoxicated. It feels funny, huh? > I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving > recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but > many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking. Bullshit. Just because you're dumb enough to say that -and wish it were so- that still doesn't make it true. Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient." (Where I say "bicycles" I'd also include "motorcycles." I think all people that do no damage to others when they get killed, should be free to drink or not. It's about freedom, not encouragement, of course) On Aug 4, 2:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <8a162bc0-c158-4949-9895-50e6de894...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even be good for society if you get killed. ;) But when you have two or more tons of steels behind the wheel, you become PUBLIC ENEMY. And by the way, this is not a crusade against alcohol, since I reserve myself the right to ride a bicycle in the rare occasion that I decide to drink and ride. The real purpose of this campaign is to create OPTIONS (buses, bikes) for the drunks and everybody else. Cheers! > (Where I say "bicycles" I'd also include "motorcycles." I think all > people that do no damage to others when they get killed, should be > free to drink or not. It's about freedom, not encouragement, of > course) The problem with that, of course, is that it is impossible to determine, before the fact, which drinking drivers/riders will simply take themselves out, and which will do so in a manner so as to take innocent bystanders along with them. It's about responsibility, which ALWAYS has to be the flip side of "freedom." Bob M. "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message > It's about responsibility, which ALWAYS has to be the > flip side of "freedom." In a true democracy, privileges are nonexistent. There are only rights, no privileges. It should not a privilege to drive on the nation's highways, it should be a right. > "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message > It's about > responsibility, which ALWAYS has to be the >> flip side of "freedom." > > In a true democracy, privileges are nonexistent. Thank (insert deity of your choice here), then, that we don't live in a democracy. > There are only rights Nonsense. Where do you think these things you call "rights" come from, anyway? (Hint: the notion of "inherent, God-given rights" makes for good speeches, but in any practical sense is the purest of meaningless drivel.) Bob M. > "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message > It's about > responsibility, which ALWAYS has to be the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no > privileges. 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins'-Oliver Wendell Holmes. SignatureOtto Yamamoto >(Where I say "bicycles" I'd also include "motorcycles." I think all >people that do no damage to others when they get killed, should be >free to drink or not. It's about freedom, not encouragement, of >course) I agree - after they kill themselves, if they didn't hurt anyone else, they should not be charged with a crime. >Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be >RUI. yah, right. Wanna try that one in court ? > And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride >under the influence you are endangering yourself. Hey, it may be even >be good for society if you get killed. ;) No, you're endangering everyone around you, too. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/ Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm On Aug 4, 5:53 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Riding a bike under the influence is NOT DUI. At worst it could be > > RUI. And if you wonder what's the difference it's that when you ride [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Gee, why don't they close the damn liquor stores, and go back to the good ol' times of Capone? He was tough competition for the police, huh? "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1d108fee-a0de-4df6-b155-> > Cops need to make DUI arrests for their next review They get promotion points for every arrest/ticket and DUI generates the most promotion points of any misdemeanor. When I was in the military, dentists were promoted based on how many teeth they pulled. So they would even tell you a healthy tooth was bad and yank it out. It was best to avoid military dentists like the plague unless you had a real bad tooth causing you pain. > yah, right. Wanna try that one in court ? f.ck court......courts are just crowded revenue generating mills. Sit in the courtroom and watch the corrupt mill at work. The judge bangs the gavel every five minutes and keeps squeezing all of the money outta the pockets of poverty stricken jaywalkers and parking violators. After all, that's where their salaries are coming from.....fines and county property taxes. On Aug 4, 10:53 pm, alabamaroseth...@yahoo.com wrote: > > yah, right. Wanna try that one in court ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > violators. After all, that's where their salaries are coming > from.....fines and county property taxes. And they never address our chaotic roads. They just want more people to "speed" and miss their reading glasses so they can't read the parking hours on the parking meter. Are you able to read the fine print there? Well, now they are adopting the European style ticket dispenser where at least you can read the hours. "Twibil" <jose.noway6@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e95f14e1-0609-494b-8ac2- Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient." Let's see how good a blind driver does versus someone on a cellphone or a drunk driver. > Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient." > > Let's see how good a blind driver does versus someone on a cellphone or a > drunk driver. Fine with me. But we're using *you* as the target. You may think this is a series of bad jokes, but hopefully they make you think... (I respond below) Originally Posted by noisebeam "Is it OK for drunk cyclists to run stop lights? After all some say it is safer." Al It's OK if they make it alive to the other side. But some say it's even better if they do NOT make it. PS: I guess that's a cruel joke. I would only drink and ride in protected areas. >You may think this is a series of bad jokes, but hopefully they make > you think... .... > It's OK if they make it alive to the other side. But some say it's > even better if they do NOT make it. > > PS: I guess that's a cruel joke. I would only drink and ride in > protected areas. Idiot. You may think that's just the first in a series of responses calling you that...and you're probably right. Bob M. Originally Posted by ferd_miller And BTW: what campaign? Are you organizing a "Critical Sloshed Mass" to push the agenda that motorists should be aware of and make accommodations for drunk cyclists? PS: That actually sounds fairly amusing; I'd love to see a YouTube video of that! *** No, the point is that if they must drink and drive, they better ride (taxi, bus or bike). Your wish... ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHYn1fJqXLc Originally Posted by Bekologist I suspect you can find some variation of "the drunken riders club" in every major city. *** It won't have as many members as the Hypocritical Club --those who know that those who drink also drive and yet deny it. How you think those millions of Americans who go to parties and clubs every week make it home, the magic carpet? Originally Posted by Pat I just checked a web site on FL DUI laws. It was well peculiar. The site stated that bicycles, golf carts, horses and farm machinery were all considered to be vehicles. I believe that golf carts are not legal vehicles. They can not be operated legally on the road. I don't know about horses. I think tractors and such can operate on the roads. I have read all of the bike specific laws in FL and there is no attenuation of DUI under statute for bicycles. On the other hand, people who lose their licenses for DUI in motorized vehicles can ride bicycles and I think they can do so legally. No drivers license is required for cycling in FL. In facts, I think people with DUIs are sort of encouraged to use bikes as an alternate form of transportation. I have heard of people who had multiple DUIs in autos switching to bicycles and driving drunk all the time. Maybe the police figure it is best just to tolerate them and let natural selection take its course. *** I think the people who put together the Florida laws (where I live) must also have been drunk --or high. I know politicians and lawyers attend a lot of parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking" http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88 Originally Posted by Allister "I think all mobile phones should be replaced with Bananaphones." I think it deserves serious consideration... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWKV4uC9qpM (Well at least they won't be as "deadly" serious as in a regular phone) Originally Posted by wabbit "i got squeezed over to the side of a road almost onto the sidewalk, by a car that was drifting over...wouldn't you know it, the stupid idiot was looking down at her iphone and texting, not even looking at the road." That calls for a banana (or middle finger). Originally Posted by genec "Having been part of the cell phone industry for a number of years... I hated the lack of courtesy that these things seem to have brought to society... but then I would remember it was the user, not the cell phone, that was the problem. I still work in wireless, but not the cell phone industry." They say the same things about guns and SUVs. I don't know why they attract some dangerous people. Bikes though appeal to many nice people. I guess everything is not normal out there... In this other forum whenever I make comments to draw lessons from accidents, I'm banned under the rules of the forum. Fine, I tell the people to stop posting things about accidents and pretend like "everything is normal"... 'I think this kind of "bad news" where there's death and mayhem should be banned... The reason is that then one starts drawing lessons from them and gets carried away, and voila! you are banned. Just pretend everything is nice and normal out there.' And I get this reply... No, it's not "Nice and Normal" out there. People are freaking idiots and will kill you if you give them the chance. More on the story.... DUI ? Suspended license ? Yeah, people are idiots. http://www.gazette.com/articles/spri...lice_free.html SUNRISE: 2 women arrested in crashes that killed 3 cyclists Comments 1 | Recommend 0 August 7, 2008 - 7:47AM The Gazette Two women were arrested this week on suspicion of vehicular homicide in separate crashes that killed three people. Barbara Thomas, 64, is accused of killing two bicyclists Wednesday on Colorado Springs' west side when her one-ton pickup drove into a group of five cyclists, according to police. Thomas was traveling southbound on S. 26th Street in her 1986 Ford F-350 when she attempted to turn left onto Westend Avenue. She struck at least two of the bicyclists, who were riding northbound on 26th Street. Thomas's arrest was also based on a suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs, driving with a restricted licenses, and making an improper left turn. Names of the victims have not been released. Motorcyclist killed Tina Kelly, 33, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of killing a motorcyclist Aug. 1 in southeast Colorado Springs after first lying to police, police reported. Andrew Allman, 25, of Colorado Springs, died at the scene near Airport and Chelton roads when his motorcycle crashed into the back of a Mercury compact car backing out of a driveway about midnight. A passenger on the motorcycle, Amanda Diaz, 22, remains hospitalized in serious condition with a head injury and fractured hip. Kelly told police at the time of the accident that she was the passenger in the Mercury and the driver, a man, had fled the scene. Police later determined she was the alleged driver. In addition to vehicular homicide, she was arrested on suspicion of false reporting, driving under the influence, driving under restraint, and other charges. it was the bicyclists fault for trying to ride down roads and highways. They need to stay on the bike paths. Also, motorcyclists are too hard to see in the daytime. They shouldn't charge anyone that hits a motorbike in the daytime. Only let motorcycles on the road at night when you can see their headlight. > I guess everything is not normal out there... > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > driving under the influence, driving under restraint, and other > charges. > Also, motorcyclists are too hard to see in the daytime. They shouldn't > charge anyone that hits a motorbike in the daytime. Only let motorcycles > on > the road at night when you can see their headlight. Right - rider and bike together making for at least 400-500 pounds of flesh and metal, say about 5 feet tall and a good 6 feet long, generally with a good percentage of shiny bits, bright colors, headlights that are always on, etc., and you still can't see us? Did you ever think that it just MIGHT be because you're an inattentive, incompetent twit when behind the wheel? I suppose we should also excuse any driver that hits similarly hard-to-see objects, such as road signs, safety cones, railroad crossing gates, and the occasional pedestrian? Who do you look up to as the ideal driver? Stevie Wonder? Bob M. "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> Did you ever think that it just MIGHT > be because you're an inattentive, incompetent twit when behind > the wheel? I don't have the time or inclination to scrutinize every little insignificant bug on the road. If bikers get in the way, then they're gonna get plowed over and I'll just keep on truckin. They need to stay out of the way or get steamrolled. > "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> Did you ever think that it just > MIGHT [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get plowed over and I'll just keep on truckin. They need to stay out of the > way or get steamrolled. Sure. Now let's see you walk into a biker bar -*any* old biker bar- and say the same thing, good and loud. We'll wait. On Aug 8, 1:04 am, "Tony Evans" <obstac...@crushed.org> wrote: > "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> Did you ever think that it just > MIGHT [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the > way or get steamrolled. Sure. Now let's see you walk into a biker bar -*any* old biker bar- and say the same thing, good and loud. We'll wait. Heh... If my wife heard him say that _She'd_ punch his lights out. :-) > I don't have the time or inclination to scrutinize every little > insignificant bug on the road. If bikers get in the way, then they're > gonna > get plowed over and I'll just keep on truckin. They need to stay out of > the > way or get steamrolled. From time to time you'll be out of your truck. I hope, at that time, that you'll cross paths with another a.shole with your mindset. And if you have any children that ride bicycles, I hope they don't meet up with an idiot like you. |>> be because you're an inattentive, incompetent twit when behind |>> the wheel? |> |>I don't have the time or inclination to scrutinize every little |>insignificant bug on the road. If bikers get in the way, then they're gonna These little bugs, are they the ones with those HAMC patches??? You consider a scooter running the right speed, a problem to you because you gotta get there too fast for no reason.......do U delver like a hot chicken for some trucking firm that is leaning on you...or do U just like drive faster than the rest.... |>get plowed over and I'll just keep on truckin. They need to stay out of the |>way or get steamrolled. Plowed over is a real Homicidal Tendency...Refer NNTP/IETF Usenet watch on this.... Again you are going over the designated speed limit......your kind always does and get mad when you get pulled over and someone pulls you ticket and license... OTOH maybe you drive in an area with a lot of 50ccs on the hi-way, I don't get the actual picture here... > "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> Did you ever think that it just > MIGHT [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get plowed over and I'll just keep on truckin. They need to stay out of the > way or get steamrolled. That's my attitude except I do that on a motorcycle. Your type in you auto's are hazard on the road pure and simple. As such I deal with the problem auto's quickly, decisively and a fair bit of "let's just get this piece of rubbish off the road and get on with riding". Just pushing you people out of my way on the road is a part of life just like tripping you up in to store. Just getting you lower lifeforms out of the way. -- Keith > "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> Did you ever think that it > just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the > way or get steamrolled. I sure hope you don't still feel that way when you get out of junior high and actually start driving. Bob M. On Aug 4, 10:01 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > Cops don't care. They charge people with DUI either way. I've read > > news reports of people being charged with DUI while riding bicycles, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / > She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- I think the sheep are basically free, but have been trained from birth to follow the leader. It's like Orwell used to say... "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip" -George Orwell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.