Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

[donquijote1954]

I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
near me.

Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
everything at once. Everybody does it, right?

Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.

It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
(see below), but that's another issue.

In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...

"Red light camera solution?"
"Big Boy" <***@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message news:***@mb-fw.aol.com...
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
:
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: **** taking away even more of our
: freedom.

Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?

Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?

The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...

---
jb3

http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0e5a32de216/342f792fe8027559?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%22car+ran+the+light%22#342f792fe8027559

***

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

[donquijote1954]

(other people say)

I've been saying for years that criminal drivers are the real
terrorists. Your chances of being killed or maimed by a speeder or
DUI are a thousand times greater than by some mad bomber. Americans
are such idiots for buying into this arab terrorism crap.

My family have been a victim of both. I had a cousin killed on 9/11, and his
father was killed by a mindless driver who ran a red-light. I only have to
know that the first one exists. The second, I have to worry about, and watch
for on a daily basis. Especially when I'm traveling on 2 wheels.

That's my point. Most of us have never been endangered by a terrorist
but we are endangered by by criminal drivers every day. And yet which
is the idiot american most concerned with.?

Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.

Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.
Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.

What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.

Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.

Instead of "Its like they don't care..." we have exactly the opposite where
people care a lot and are putting a lot of money into developing solutions
industry wide to make driving potentially very safe.

In your ignorance of present activities, you have done nothing while the
world has many people actually solving the problems.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.
Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.
What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications. The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.
Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

[Jack May]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.
Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections. Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders
- then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most
people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
responses.

Post by Tom Sherman
If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will
automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs
out into the road. That should not be hard once transponders become
common.
Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.
Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near that
for large passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders
- then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

[Bolwerk]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists,
pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped
with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most
people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
responses.

Post by Tom Sherman
If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything with a transponder, including people and pets. The car
will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child
that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once
transponders become common.
Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.
Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near
that for large passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing
in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists,
pedestrians and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped
with transponders?

Probably.  I think we are talking about a single chip.  Since most
people carry a cell phone with them these day with location
electronics, maybe the law requires a transponder capability like the
law now require location to be determined by each cell phone for 911
responses.

Post by Tom Sherman
If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that
will make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit
anything with a transponder, including people and pets.   The car
will automatically brake for example to keep from hitting a child
that runs out into the road. That should not be hard once
transponders become common.
Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the
road that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.  
Zero death is probably impossible even though we are getting near
that for large passenger jets.

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

Scheiss, imagine Jack's tv shouting out, "Mr May, stop that or you will
go blind!"

That would only happen during a GM commercial.  WTF is this thread doing
in a transit group anyway?  Jack's a troll.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public
transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the
road...

Driving tests and real-life driving

(...)

Politically, it is unpopular to suggest somebody who is physically
impaired, who is emotionally unbalanced, or who is just plain stupid
should not drive. But the fact is; bad driving causes lethal accidents
and huge traffic jams every day, all across America. Bad driving
wastes millions of gallons of fuel and adds tons of pollutants to our
air.

America's urban freeways are no place for the incompetent, and it is
thousands of times less expensive and more effective to get lousy
drivers off the road than it is to build ever-wider freeways and more
elaborate junctions. A more difficult driving test will accomplish
this. Driving tests can also reinforce common sense, patience, and
respect for others... things which are increasingly rare on American
roads.

Current driving tests measure rudimentary knowledge of the rules of
the road. At some point in a driver's life-usually very early- you
must prove your ability to operate a vehicle under minimally difficult
circumstances. Once licensed, many Americans are not road tested again
for dozens of years. Adding cellular phones, babies, fast food,
gigantic Sport Utility Vehicles, and other distractions on top of a
general increase in traffic and average speeds-only brews more
gridlock and carnage.

(...)

America must not shrink from hard decisions about where, when and who
is fit to drive. We must get the incompetent, the angry, the
thoughtless and the decrepit off the road. At the same time, we must
provide the opportunity to learn driving skills for people who need to
drive and are able to do it well, regardless of income level.

Giving people options
Increased transportation options for people who cannot drive must
coincide with efforts to weed out lousy drivers. Forcing people out of
their cars, with no way to get to work, breeds outlaws and
joblessness. Some ways include:

electric scooter and bicycle programs
bike-trains
high-speed rail

By eliminating the small percentage of drivers who, for whatever
reason, simply cannot cope with modern driving, we can reduce the
estimated 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline wasted by Americans who were
waiting in traffic in 1997, reduce the air pollution associated with
that colossal waste, and reduce the amount of frustration on our roads
in general.

more...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote44

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public

transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the

Post by donquijote1954
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with using
bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of those
alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars. Cars
will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using
alternative fuels instead of oil.

The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted...

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public

transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the

Post by donquijote1954
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal.   The public wants nothing to do with using
bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative.  All of those
alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars.   Cars
will be here long after you are dead.  They will just being using
alternative fuels instead of oil.
The sophomoric crap at the end has been deleted...

Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.

"You can't fool all the people all the time"

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.

Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just
call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of
significance in life .

As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into
developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. You have
presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now
being developed.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.

Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just
call them names.   That is why people like you never accomplish anything of
significance in life .

That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always
reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor
doesn't hurt.

Post by Jack May
As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into
developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates.  You have
presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now
being developed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, the Germans and Nordics seem to emphasize *safety now*, not in
some distant future. People are needless dying now as we speak. AND WE
EVEN HAVE SOME HIGH TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE *NOT* PUT TO USE. Case in
point is the steering wheel immobilizer that senses the alcohol in
your breath. That would be a nice way to prevent DUIs, but like the
book "It's No Accident" states, the government turns a blind eye to
it. Too much money --and too many lawyers and MADD-- involved in that
business.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.

Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just
call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of
significance in life .

That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always
reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor
doesn't hurt.

No, but where Jack is concerned, it is entirely superfluous.

[Troppo]

[snip snip]

... AND WE
EVEN HAVE SOME HIGH TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE *NOT* PUT TO USE. Case in
point is the steering wheel immobilizer that senses the alcohol in
your breath. That would be a nice way to prevent DUIs,

Only if compulsorily retrofitted in all vehicles AND work for a period of
time AND don't suddenly fail and (in this case) lock up the steering wheel
AND isn't easily circumvented.

The idea that somehow technology can replace common sense doesn't have a
good track record. Even sensible ideas like engine immobilisers and ABS
brakes have a downside. Smart locks are more likely to keep out the owner,
eg when you park near a powerful radio source and you need a huge piece of
aluminium foil to block it before the door will open.

Around here we have long periods without rain, so when it does come, the
roads turn into an oil slick for a period of time. Crunch crunch crunch ...
too many drivers think ABS brakes stop you skidding. They don't.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public

transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the

Post by donquijote1954
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with using
bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of those
alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars. Cars
will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using
alternative fuels instead of oil.[...]

Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to
bicycles.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public

transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the

Post by donquijote1954
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with
using bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of
those alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing
cars. Cars will be here long after you are dead. They will just
being using alternative fuels instead of oil.[...]

Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to
bicycles.

Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May?

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public

transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the

Post by donquijote1954
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do
with using bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative.
All of those alternative are total failures with zero chance of
replacing cars. Cars will be here long after you are dead. They
will just being using alternative fuels instead of oil.[...]

Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles
to bicycles.

Heh. Tom Sherman = Bizzaro Jack May?

I Ride Bike, Therefore I Am.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by donquijote1954
[...]
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public
transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the
road[...]

Superior people prefer to ride a bicycle.

I am counting down the days to a move that will allow to commute by bicycle!

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
That would only happen during a GM commercial. WTF is this thread doing
in a transit group anyway? Jack's a troll.

Because "donquijote1954" likes to link to a large number of newsgroups.

[Jack May]

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.

You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.
You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

[Bolwerk]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more
powerful than is being planned for car to car communication over a
short range of hundreds of feet.
You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

Watch it. Subtlety flies over his amazing genius head too.

[donquijote1954]

OK, since the subject here is ROAD TERRORISM, it may be useful to know
what the color code on our roads is...

(quoted from 'It's No Accident')

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, officials in the Bush
Administration have been issuing routine reminders about the threads
posed by terrorists and urging us to be on the lookout for suspicious
activity. In March 2002 the Department of Homeland Security introduced
a color-coded terror system to alert law enforcement officials and the
general public to increases in the level of "chatter" the goverment
intercepts from suspected terror cells. We are urged to take extra
precautions when the threat level is elevated.

(...)

Such efforts to alert the public to the potential for future attacks
and encourage us to be prepared may indeed save some lives. On a day-
to-day basis, however, the greatest threat to our individual safety is
the same as it was before September 11th: DANGEROUS DRIVERS. If a
color-coded system were adopted today to warn Americans of the risk of
impending death or injury while traveling the nation's roads, we would
have to be on CODE RED alert every single day.

In spite of this reality, the government makes little effort to inform
the public about the high crash rate on our roads, remind motorists of
the rules of the road, warn them of the risks inherent in all forms of
dangerous driving, encourage safe driving, or condemn dangerous
driving.

[Warning: These terrorists are on the loose]

[donquijote1954]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.
You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

This is the best definition I've found...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.
You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

The fundies are drooling over a chance to enforce their sexual mores on
everyone else.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

In my 'umble station in life I carry a phone which is only a phone.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From "Rollerball"

Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel
through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our
congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not
only be safe, they'll also be redundant.

Did you see "The Matrix," how the lady disappears right on time to
escape the bad guys through the telephone lines? And all that
technology is being developed at this very minute by a Republican
Administration that knows the future is up in the air. ;)

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In the future people will travel
through the telephone lines!!! Imagine all the space left open on our
congested roads. And, of course, then bicycles and scooters will not
only be safe, they'll also be redundant.

Transporters have been built and are working. They work through tens of
miles of fiber optics, not wires. Of course they only transport the states
of atoms now using particle entanglement. Transporting people is way beyond
what can be done now.

[Pat]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably.  I think we are talking about a single chip.  Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets.   The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation
as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell
phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic
stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the
limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put
direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Transponders. Yeah, great idea.

Congress people really want the capability for "zero deaths" on the road
that they can brag about pushing when running for reelections.  Zero death
is probably impossible even though we are getting near that for large
passenger jets.

[Amy Blankenship]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.

Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation
as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell
phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic
stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the
limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put
direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Transponders. Yeah, great idea.


----------------------------------------
Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get the
memo about needing a transponder.

Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere
(who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to
if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders preventing
anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting there.

[donquijote1954]

OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me:
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...

Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.

Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)

A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

By JANE HADLEY
P-I REPORTER

Steep gas prices.

Flabby bodies cruising for diabetes and heart trouble.

Global warming.

Air pollution.


If the pitfalls of automobiles aren't already enough to make you think
about chucking your car for other ways of getting around, consider the
growth that is in store for Seattle.

In the next 19 years, the city expects 22,000 new housing units and
50,000 new jobs.

Assuming the same percentage of people continued driving alone to
work, the city estimates it would have to build 20 city blocks of 10-
story parking garages downtown.

"Nobody wants to do that," says Patrice Gillespie-Smith, chief of
staff of the city's Department of Transportation. "We are very
motivated to offer incentives to get people out of their cars."

In 2000, 61 percent of all Seattle work trips were by someone driving
alone. By 2020, the city's transportation strategic plan wants to
knock that down to 55 percent. People tend to become more interested
in shifting out of their cars if gas or parking prices escalate, and
if alternatives to the car are reliable, affordable and convenient,
experts say.

But it often takes something unusual to inspire or shake people into
the awareness of those alternatives, said David Allen, senior
transportation planner for the city.

A city program called "One Less Car Challenge" aims to do just that,
Allen said. The program encourages people to give up use of one car
for one month, offering commuters tips on getting around by bus, bike
or foot and also providing the free use of a Flexcar when needed.

Of the 86 people who signed up initially in the fall of 2003, 20
percent decided to give up a car and the rest have vowed to drive
less, Allen said. "It proved people could do it," he said.

And the city is hoping to encourage people to use cars less by making
it more difficult to find places to park.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/258737_nocar08.html

[donquijote1954]

On Feb 21, 1:16 pm, "Christopher von Volborth"

Post by donquijote1954
By eliminating the small percentage of drivers who, for whatever
reason, simply cannot cope with modern driving, we can reduce the
estimated 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline wasted by Americans who were
waiting in traffic in 1997, reduce the air pollution associated with
that colossal waste, and reduce the amount of frustration on our roads
in general.
more...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote44

So who is the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't capable of dealing with
the challenge of American motorized traffic?

The jugde is common sense. Just get in line with what's being done in
Western European countries.

The Germans had a great idea

for dispensing with analogous social issues...they were called
concentration camps.

So you think the SUV drivers are the poor victims of discrimination?
The Germans also felt they were a superior race that was entitled to
special rights --just like American consumers do.

The soviets under Stalin were no less ambitious in

formulating the perfect society.

You don't have to be ambitious, just practice the democratic principle
that everyone is entitled to reasonable safety when doing the right
thing. Not only they stay away from moral judgement, they make it
impossible for those who want to do something (eg. ride a bike) for
the environment.

They Soviets are also spoke about a future that never came, just like
Bush and his future "development of alternative energies," whatever
that means. If he were a real leader he would encourage the people to
SAVE and GET IN SHAPE. Why not? It's simply better to invade Iraq.

No, the answer must be that everyone gets

the same opportunity to benefit from all that our culture has to offer. For
that reason we live in a society ruled by laws to ensure that we don't
descend into anarchy.

The laws in my state says that bicycles are vehicles, which conflicts
with the reality of unreasonable fear imposed on those who dare
challenge our lawless roads.

Those who break the law risk getting caught and

paying the consequences.

When the possibilities are only 1 in 1000, people take chances.
However if you were to put speed cameras, then would see real change.

Some may not get caught, causing damage to others;

that is the inherent risk in humans being social animals.

Some animals have much greater armor (SUVs) than others. Then you have
to protect the little animals with special laws, not the big ones.
They do it in Holland, for example.

Therefore

intellectually motivated social engineering has, as far as I can glean from
my reading of human history, been a major repeated disaster.

Are you talking about nation building in Iraq?

By contrast,

Homo sapiens, like any other species, evolves by natural selection as it
strives to meet the challenges of environmental pressure, and that includes
the pressures of motorized traffic.

Evolution is denied. New challenges have risen... only to be ignored
by the powers that be. Case in point, CLIMATE CHANGE. The dinosaurs
are ignoring this important law proposed by Darwin himself...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

The call for "...eliminating the small

percentage of drivers...who cannot cope with driving," must also be mindful
of potential broader consequences that are as yet unforseeable.

Sure, a total catastrophe where the whole country could look like Key
West at worst and Holland at best.

For the

present, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen...if you're
afraid of traffic stay off the road.

Me? I've got my stationary bike. The bikes are gathering rust. But
still ride my scooter. Too much fun.

[donquijote1954]

Have you noticed how the lion has a set of priorities different from
the little animals --even when it means life or death to them?

"United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the
number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27.
Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and
99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet *traffic safety
programs receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT
budget*. The staggering loss of life and the incidence of life-
threatening injuries occurring each year is best described as a public
health crisis."

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm

Here's the story of the lion... ;)

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
the quick way out of poverty..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle --
to the effect of exploring life in other planets...

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad. They are what they are: good for some and
useless for others. And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me. I like Rocky Road ice cream. That doesn't
mean that you should too. It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars. The government can control useage
through tax policy.

The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. You're riding a
motorcycle. Get it, a motorcycle. It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle. If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road. If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one. Get out in
the lane. Maintain road speed. Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder. Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous. I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble. In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike. Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong. But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them. They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing. Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem. I've never found that to be an issue.

Anyway, whoever it is. Stay safe and have fun. 2 months or so until
I can get back on the bike. Too much snow right now. So my nice warm
van is a comfort.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad.  They are what they are: good for some and
useless for others.  And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me.  I like Rocky Road ice cream.  That doesn't
mean that you should too.  It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you
drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks
(remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two
wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating,
intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me
give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport...

Post by Pat
The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars.  The government can control useage
through tax policy.

Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price
for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will.

Post by Pat
The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

Sure. That tax above would pay for the subsidies.

Post by Pat
But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing
democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following
"market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices.

Post by Pat
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve.  Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such.  It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter.  You're riding a
motorcycle.  Get it, a motorcycle.  It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle.  If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road.  If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one.  Get out in
the lane.  Maintain road speed.  Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder.  Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous.  I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble.  In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike.  Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong.  But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them.  They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing.  Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have
special license and training.

Post by Pat
For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem.  I've never found that to be an issue.

I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment.
They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution
is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above.
Aren't SUVs trucks?

[donquijote1954]

(Quoted from 'It's No Accident." The items I disagree with, I put a
question mark. Consider it a rough draft for the revolution's traffic
safey policy, or simply an impossible dream for America)

As to what should constitute gross negligence on the part of
motorists, this is obviously the stikiest part of the equation. Some
of what I believe constitutes gross negligence is perfectly legal
right now. Other such behaviors net little more than a slap on the
wrist. However, if our society is ever to get truly serious about
elimination avoidable crashes on our roads, it is essential that we
begin to distinguish between crashes that result from honest mistakes
and those that result from INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR SAFETY. [my
emphasis]

Accordingly, any definition of gross negligence would, at minimum,
include crashes that involve the following:

- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit

- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

- hit and run, etc...

* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.

I'd add my own:

- zigzagging around cars

- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954
(Quoted from 'It's No Accident." The items I disagree with, I put a
question mark. Consider it a rough draft for the revolution's traffic
safey policy, or simply an impossible dream for America)
As to what should constitute gross negligence on the part of
motorists, this is obviously the stikiest part of the equation. Some
of what I believe constitutes gross negligence is perfectly legal
right now. Other such behaviors net little more than a slap on the
wrist. However, if our society is ever to get truly serious about
elimination avoidable crashes on our roads, it is essential that we
begin to distinguish between crashes that result from honest mistakes
and those that result from INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR SAFETY. [my
emphasis]
Accordingly, any definition of gross negligence would, at minimum,
- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive. Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal. So what's you point.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit
- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement. However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people. Have fun with that one.

Post by donquijote1954
- hit and run, etc...
* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.
- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal. As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.

Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds. "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".

Post by donquijote1954
- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.

Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal. So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops. So how is changing the law
going to do anything?

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954
- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive.  Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal.  So what's you point.

It's not illegal in most of the country. Again, you generalize by
where you live.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit
- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement.  However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people.  Have fun with that one.

Everybody runs red lights where I live, except in the boondocks, of
course, where's no red lights. In the Florida Keys they don't have
much of a problem either. That's also the boondocks.

Post by donquijote1954
- hit and run, etc...
* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.
- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal.  As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.

They always zigzag where I live. And I guess it's the same for most of
the country. I read So. Carolina is the worst.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.
Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds.  "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".

When you see that happening all the time. You can predict with 90%
accuracy they are on the phone. Or sometimes elder people. Time to
retire, you know.

Post by donquijote1954
- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.
Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal.  So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops.  So how is changing the law
going to do anything?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put
cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive.  Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal.  So what's you point.

It's not illegal in most of the country. Again, you generalize by
where you live.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit
- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement.  However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people.  Have fun with that one.

Everybody runs red lights where I live, except in the boondocks, of
course, where's no red lights. In the Florida Keys they don't have
much of a problem either. That's also the boondocks.

Post by donquijote1954
- hit and run, etc...
* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.
- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal.  As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.

They always zigzag where I live. And I guess it's the same for most of
the country. I read So. Carolina is the worst.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.
Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds.  "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".

When you see that happening all the time. You can predict with 90%
accuracy they are on the phone. Or sometimes elder people. Time to
retire, you know.

Post by donquijote1954
- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.
Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal.  So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops.  So how is changing the law
going to do anything?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put
cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant.

I think a better solution is to just move to the boondocks. We ain't
got those problems. We once had a school bus drive complain that
someone went past the bus' red lights 2 days in a row. On the third
day, and unmarked cop car tailed the bus. No problems since then.
That's about our level of excitement around here. You should try it
some time. Wonderful way to live. No crowds. No conjestion. Low
prices. Everything I want is nearby. You can't beat that.

Oh, and my son's school has about 640 kids in it. No, not the grade.
No, not the building. That's for the entire school district -- grades
K to 12.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive.  Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal.  So what's you point.

It's not illegal in most of the country. Again, you generalize by
where you live.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit
- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement.  However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people.  Have fun with that one.

Everybody runs red lights where I live, except in the boondocks, of
course, where's no red lights. In the Florida Keys they don't have
much of a problem either. That's also the boondocks.

Post by donquijote1954
- hit and run, etc...
* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.
- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal.  As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.

They always zigzag where I live. And I guess it's the same for most of
the country. I read So. Carolina is the worst.

Post by donquijote1954
- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.
Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds.  "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".

When you see that happening all the time. You can predict with 90%
accuracy they are on the phone. Or sometimes elder people. Time to
retire, you know.

Post by donquijote1954
- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.
Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal.  So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops.  So how is changing the law
going to do anything?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put
cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant.

I think a better solution is to just move to the boondocks.  We ain't
got those problems.  We once had a school bus drive complain that
someone went past the bus' red lights 2 days in a row.  On the third
day, and unmarked cop car tailed the bus.  No problems since then.
That's about our level of excitement around here.  You should try it
some time.  Wonderful way to live.  No crowds.  No conjestion.  Low
prices.  Everything I want is nearby.  You can't beat that.
Oh, and my son's school has about 640 kids in it.  No, not the grade.
No, not the building.  That's for the entire school district -- grades
K to 12.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If everybody moved to the boondocks, however, it would become just
another suburban sprawl, which is the cause of our dependency on cars.
Oh, for sure you will get those trying to beat the ligth everyday on
their way to work.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad.  They are what they are: good for some and
useless for others.  And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me.  I like Rocky Road ice cream.  That doesn't
mean that you should too.  It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you
drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks
(remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two
wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating,
intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me
give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport...

Post by Pat
The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars.  The government can control useage
through tax policy.

Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price
for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will.

Post by Pat
The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

Sure.  That tax above would pay for the subsidies.

Post by Pat
But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing
democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following
"market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices.

Post by Pat
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve.  Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such.  It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter.  You're riding a
motorcycle.  Get it, a motorcycle.  It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle.  If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road.  If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one.  Get out in
the lane.  Maintain road speed.  Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder.  Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous.  I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble.  In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike.  Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong.  But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them.  They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing.  Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have
special license and training.

Post by Pat
For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem.  I've never found that to be an issue.

I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment.
They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution
is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above.
Aren't SUVs trucks?- Hide quoted text -

Yes, SUVs are trucks. So are minivans. So are Subarus. There is no
real distinction except maybe bumper height. But you can go get a 20'
Uhaul and drive it, too: You are the U in U-Haul. It's not someone-
else-haul.

Don't get intimindated on the road. That's probably 90% of your
trouble. That, and acting unpredictably.

As for boondocks. Yeah, great to live here. But I spend way too much
time traveling to cities and suburbs. It's not the size of the cars
that bother me, it's all of the people. The cars are fine.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...
Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.
Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading... ;)
A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad.  They are what they are: good for some and
useless for others.  And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me.  I like Rocky Road ice cream.  That doesn't
mean that you should too.  It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you
drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks
(remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two
wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating,
intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me
give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport...

Post by Pat
The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars.  The government can control useage
through tax policy.

Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price
for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will.

Post by Pat
The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

Sure.  That tax above would pay for the subsidies.

Post by Pat
But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing
democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following
"market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices.

Post by Pat
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve.  Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such.  It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter.  You're riding a
motorcycle.  Get it, a motorcycle.  It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle.  If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road.  If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one.  Get out in
the lane.  Maintain road speed.  Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder.  Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous.  I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble.  In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike.  Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong.  But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them.  They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing.  Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have
special license and training.

Post by Pat
For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem.  I've never found that to be an issue.

I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment.
They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution
is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above.
Aren't SUVs trucks?- Hide quoted text -

Yes, SUVs are trucks.  So are minivans.  So are Subarus.  There is no
real distinction except maybe bumper height.  But you can go get a 20'
Uhaul and drive it, too:  You are the U in U-Haul.  It's not someone-
else-haul.

No, miss. SUVs are trucks and minivans are cars by the definition that
makes SUVs get away with substandard safety, both to them and to
others. They were too above the CAFE standards for the same reason.
And you can also write them as work vehicles for similar reason,
however twisted those definitions may be.

Don't get intimindated on the road.  That's probably 90% of your
trouble.  That, and acting unpredictably.

Why don't you buy the book I've been using? That the roads are so
dangerous is probably one good reason for some people to move to the
boondocks.

As for boondocks.  Yeah, great to live here.  But I spend way too much
time traveling to cities and suburbs.  It's not the size of the cars
that bother me, it's all of the people.  The cars are fine.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If you only go to town occasionally, you may not notice the magnitude
of the problem...

(coment from 'It's No Accident')

Lisa Lewis's total command of the issues surrounding traffic safety
makes this a most credible book. She is at her best when she takes
unconventional stances on matters that have long been somewhat
sacrosanct in this country, such as pointing out the complicity of the
insurance industry in undermining traffic safety, or the federal
government's role in refusing to address traffic safety issues aside
from seat belts and alcohol. Likewise, she points out any number of
life-saving technologies already available that the powers-that-be
refuse to even consider requiring on vehicles.

***

I'm sure the bears where you live are not as dangerous as the
dangerous drivers out there.

[donquijote1954]

You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....

Cell phone driving = drunk driving...
If one of your pet peeves is people driving and talking on the
phone, now you have even more reason to be madd (sic). According to a
study by University of Utah psychologists, people are actually more
prone to creating an auto accident while talking on the phone than
drunk drivers are. "Just like you put yourself and other people at
risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when
you use a cell phone and drive," writes David Strayer, a psychology
professor and the study's lead author. "The level of impairment is
very similar."
The study, published in The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either
handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are
distracted by conversation. Using a driving simulator under four
different conditions: 1) with no distractions, 2) using a handheld
cell phone, 3) talking on a hands-free cell phone, and 4) while
intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants
followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly,
braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three
participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None
of the drunken drivers crashed.

http://vibrantlivingnewsletter.blogspot.com/2006/07/cell-phone-driving-drunk-driving.html

[Eric Vey]

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former.

I suspect this is true. For many years, when you saw a car acting
"strangely" and it is 3 a.m., you could assume the driver was drunk.

But these days, when it is 10 a.m. and a car is acting just as
"strangely" when you ride alongside and peer in, the driver is talking
on a cell phone.

This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it.

[Pat]

Post by Eric Vey

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former.

I suspect this is true. For many years, when you saw a car acting
"strangely" and it is 3 a.m., you could assume the driver was drunk.
But these days, when it is 10 a.m. and a car is acting just as
"strangely" when you ride alongside and peer in, the driver is talking
on a cell phone.
This has been my experience. I have no statistics to prove it.

You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving. If anything, if you
start to get tired, its better to call someone and have a chat and
wake back up than to no do so.

Besides, if you took all the phones away from people who use then
while driving, how would the cops talk to each people?

[Eric Vey]

Post by Pat
You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane.  Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

[donquijote1954]

You can go ahead and thank your blessings for
being able to get around in your car. Don't
bother to think about the many people you ignore
and prevent from being so easily able to get around,
and who's personal liberty and quality of life you
steal, by driving your car (pay-off/trade-off.)
I guess they (we plebians) don't matter.

My use of the car doesn't prevent others from getting around without one.
In fact, due to the fact that public transit is subsidized and private
automobile use far overtaxed, my driving makes public transit possible.

You also make safe bicycling impossible. A bicycle revolution is
waiting to have some room to grow and prosper.

This is the end of a great story, where the cyclists finally prevail,
only to be the object of a counter-revolution lead by the polluting
predators...

'Somewhere in a cave in some future time, when, I hope, earth above is
full of flowers and trees and birds and bees and is not a desert, a
group of clandestine worshipers will gather around the last, long-
hidden gas guzzler to dream about tooling down the road and running
cyclists off of the road. They will drink the ritualistic cans of
beer and puff the ritualistic cigarettes and morn the days when men
were men and the law of the jungle gave the right of way to the strong
and the powerful. And they will swear a violent oath: "When I grow
up, I'm never going to let anyone tell me what to do!" Then they will
hurry home before their mothers notice that they still haven't done
their homework.'

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/planet.htm

[Eric Vey]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

Post by Pat
You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

NY does not allow HAND HELD use. They allow using a microphone.

http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/phon-ndx.htm

[donquijote1954]

Hey, anonymous drivers with an addiction to gas, your vehicle causes
death and mayhem. Just like if you drink and drive, when you talk on
the cell phone, or any kind of reckless behavior, you carry a license
to kill...

Nikolas Barkelay

Montreal, d. 22.September.2002, hit in traffic

I wrote this on this night, Thursday September 26 2002, in honour of
Nikolas Barkelay, following an over-hundred-strong bicycle courier
critical mass here in Montreal, in memory of our fallen courier
comrade...

I am still moved tonight by the events that have transpired in the
last week following Nikolas Barkelay's accident and death...an almost
unknown bike messenger who died so sadly and so violently on his bike
after barely 3 months in this noble trade...a young 22 year old who
had a dream, which ended so suddenly, like shattered glass. A brave
warrior for whom over 100 of us rode for, in his memory, on this
evening tainted by sadness and recognition of the dangers we all face
every day as bicycle messengers in this urban jungle we call
home...over a hundred of us all upon our steel horses through the
streets of downtown Montreal, escorted by Nikolas's grieving parents,
no driver daring to honk at us as we are so used to during the day...a
strangely respectful procession through town, on our bicycles, in
memory of a fallen messenger who no one ever really got to know...

...

"The number-one danger is people on cell phones," says Joe Hendry, the
Toronto-based media spokesman for the International Federation of Bike
Messengers' Associations, a five-year-old international advocacy
organization that also puts on world championship races for couriers.
"That and door prizes. I've heard about people getting into
altercations, and I know one guy who had a cabbie throw a tire iron at
him. But [careless car drivers] are the biggest causes of accidents
for bike messengers." But not of fatalities. Hendry says that, "90 per
cent of deaths are caused by a truck, a bus, a van or an SUV."

http://www.ahalenia.com/memorial/nbarkelay.html

[donquijote1954]

"it is not uncommon to hear cyclists being told by cops that the 'law
of the jungle' exists on the road."

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1735

I just want drivers and authorities to acknowledge that there's such
law at work on our roads and that we cyclists (and everything on two
wheels or legs) are at the bottom of the food chain, and that we need
special laws that protect us. By the way, the dangerous drivers are
the predators of this jungle.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane.  Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

[Eric Vey]

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

Post by Pat
You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I don't know of any state that has outlawed cell phones while driving.
But you ought to know that yours is a pretty poor argument. Some people
use that same argument when talking about the outlawing of crack. Do you
think crack should be legalized because of that argument?

[Pat]

Post by Eric Vey

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane.  Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.  What does it do?  It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law.  So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law.  It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules.  It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see.  But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I don't know of any state that has outlawed cell phones while driving.
But you ought to know that yours is a pretty poor argument. Some people
use that same argument when talking about the outlawing of crack. Do you
think crack should be legalized because of that argument?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But the cops are going down the road blatantly using crack, like they
are cell phones. Once. they argued the same things about car radios.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat

Post by Pat
Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.

Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are. Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...

While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order. Driving is the same. I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle. Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all. If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road. If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.

If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

[donquijote1954]

On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"

Post by Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat

Post by Pat
Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.
Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are.    Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...
While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order.  Driving is the same.  I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle.  Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all.    If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road.  If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.
If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

I said before we need better laws and better enforcement, which is the
way to stop the road terrorists...

Would you allow known terrorists to run around with bombs? Well, cell
phones are such a thing in the hands of dangerous drivers.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954
On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"

Post by Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat

Post by Pat
Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.
Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are.    Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...
While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order.  Driving is the same.  I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle.  Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all.    If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road.  If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.
If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

I said before we need better laws and better enforcement, which is the
way to stop the road terrorists...
Would you allow known terrorists to run around with bombs? Well, cell
phones are such a thing in the hands of dangerous drivers.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Get off your high horse. You're being ridiculus.

[Pat]

On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"

Post by Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:36:01 -0800 (PST), Pat

Post by Pat
Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.

Especially when distracted driving is already illegal, and rarely
enforced.
Cell phones aren't the problem, drivers with poor attention division
skills and no situational awareness are.    Those folks are just as
distracted by passenger conversation, other cars, scenery, the radio,
etc...
While flying an airplane, I fly the airplane, navigate, and talk to
controllers, in that order.  Driving is the same.  I can talk on the
phone, but my conversation is less important than the operation of the
vehicle.  Specific road and traffic conditions dictate if a call is
safe to carry on at all.    If I need to have serious, in-depth
conversation, I need to pull off the road.  If driving attention
warrants, the call needs to go on hold or end.
If the laws on the books are actually enforced, another is not needed.

Yeah, a voice of reason.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane.  Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.  What does it do?  It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law.  So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law.  It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules.  It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see.  But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?

Cell phone policies in different countries and states...

http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

[Eric Vey]

Post by donquijote1954
I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?
Cell phone policies in different countries and states...
http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

"This page lists those countries that have banned the use of a cell
phone when driving unless used with some form of hands-free kit."

So that's a pretty useless page.

It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not
driving with one hand.

In the US, I think only California will have a law totally banning them
while driving. Watching TV while driving has been illegal forever (the
TV was legal, but it had to be placed so that the driver couldn't
watch), but I've noticed a few drivers have installed TV's where they
can see them anyway.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by donquijote1954
I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?
Cell phone policies in different countries and states...
http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm

"This page lists those countries that have banned the use of a cell phone
when driving unless used with some form of hands-free kit."
So that's a pretty useless page.
It's the conversation and the dialing that is the distraction, not driving
with one hand.

In the UK it is illegal to dial a cell phone while driving.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane.  Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law.  What does it do?  It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law.  So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law.  It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules.  It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see.  But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

I think the lack of enforcement is what's stupid. Aren't they banned
in other countries?
Cell phone policies in different countries and states...
http://www.cell-block-r.com/BannedPhones.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Before the "hands free law", you had the choice of eating OR talking
on the phone while driving. Now, due to hands free equipment, you can
do both !!!

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Eric Vey

You-all need to move to someplace sane. Around here, there's no
relationship between cell phone use and driving.

You live out in the woods or something? If you took the cell phones away
from people here, there would be an open revolt. The President can
commit war crimes and that's okay so long as you don't take away
people's cell phones. Having a cell phone is their God given right, like
owning a gun. I own both, but somehow I suspect that people would give
up their guns before they gave up their cell phones.

A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

Banning cell phones is an incredibly stupid law. What does it do? It
makes people openly and blantanly ignore the law. So when our kids
see it, they see us breaking the law. It teaches them that adults
sometimes feel that it's okay to break the rules. It's an incredibly
bad thing for the kids to see. But it's just a stupid, stupid law.

--------------------

I think it's amazing what a low opinion you have of Americans that you think
they cannot obey safety laws people in other countries somehow manage to
obey.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:47 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954

Post by donquijote1954
A few states don't allow cell phones, and I believe NY is one of them.

CT has a similar ban.

In my experience, the cell phone ban in CT and NY is about as
effective as the laws requiring a stop before a right run on red,
those restricting loud exhausts and opaque dark window tint, and those
requiring a front license plate.

We should make more motor vehicle laws to not enforce. <G>

[Bill Z.]

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>

Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving. It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

The article also doesn't say anything about the amount of time
spent on the phone. Spending one minute per hour on the phone
while driving is far safer (acording to the results cited) than
spending the same hour driving with a blood alchohol level of
0.79, (ever so slightly below the legal limit).

It also ignores the fact that the call may reduce the amount
of driving by more than enough to make up for whatever increased
risk there is. E.g., you get a call to please stop by a store
on the way home to pick something up. The call takes 30 seconds.
By accepting the call, you end up reducing the amount of driving
by 10 minutes.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>
Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving.  It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

Post by Bill Z.
Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station.

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>
Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving.  It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."
I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

Just exactly who is "society"?

If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are pissed off at the
world, then what do you know anyway....

[donquijote1954]

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>
Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving.  It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."
I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

Just exactly who is "society"?
If "society" is all of you city-slickers who are pissed off at the
world, then what do you know anyway....- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's the sheep, the people who condemn the drunk driver, but tolerate
the phone. But I'm not pissed off at the world just at its hypocrisy.

[Bill Z.]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>
Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving.  It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

Post by donquijote1954
I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

What hypocrisy? They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI. It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do. Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered. If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.
Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe. It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late". I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road. So let's keep a sense of reality here.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
You wouldn't know this if you listen to all the vilification of drunk
drivers, while you see everybody chatting on the cell phone, but the
latter may be just as dangerous as the former. Well, it may just be
that, just as terrorism, they need a scapegoat to keep people off the
real subjects....
Cell phone driving = drunk driving...

<snip>
Except the article is overstating it: they compared drivers using
cell phones to drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, which
is just at the lower limit for drunk driving.  It's set low enough
that there is not a serious level of impairment, and it is legal
to drive with a blood alchohol level of 0.079 (in California - the
level may differ from state to state).

The article closes saying...
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
I think some people can handle more or less alcohol/cell chatting. The
point is that we as society put up with a high level of hypocrisy,
before saying "no" to both alchohol and cell phones.

What hypocrisy?  They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI.  It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do.  Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered.  If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.
Also, there is a difference between chatting away and making a
quick courtesy call telling someone that you'll be late (and
you can, of course, do that while stopped at a red light as
the call is very short).

Hey, pull over and make the call from the shoulder or gas station.

I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe.  It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late".  I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road.  So let's keep a sense of reality here.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

[Bill Z.]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.

Post by donquijote1954
"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," said co-
author Frank Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell
phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is
completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

Which is nonsense because (a) "driving drunk" covers a wide range and
the minimum standard is set to what is hopefully a fairly safe value
and (b) the cell phone has no effect at all when sitting in the car and
not in use, whereas the effects of alchohol cannot be turned off
instantly.

But there are far more drivers on the cell phone than on booze, so
it's a greater risk.

The author was clearly talking about the risk per individual.

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.
What hypocrisy?  They found that, while is use, the use of a cell phone
was comparable to having drunk an alcoholic beverage, but being at
or just under the legal limit for DUI.  It's hardly compabable with
driving with a blood alcohol level 0.16, which people are known to
do.  Also, the fraction of the time spent on the phone has to be
considered.  If you spend 1 percent of your time calling, you've your
risk of an accident per mile by 1 percent of the risk you'd have by
driving at just under the legal limit for DUI.

A country that's tolerant of cell phones has hypocrisy written all
over it, particularly when it's so strict about DUIs and speed limits,
both of wich represent a milking cow for the system.

YOU can't be serious. The U.S. is not "so strict" about DUI compared
to several European countries, which have far stricter standards.

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Bill Z.
I was describing the difference, not personal behavior, but calling
while stopped at a red light is perfectly safe.  It's an ideal time to
call someone to simply say "Hi, I'm stuck in traffic and will be 15
minutes late".  I've yet to see someone cause an accident while
legally stopped on the road.  So let's keep a sense of reality here.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If you ain't moving, and then the light goes green, chances are
they'll have to blow the horn at you. Do you want that?

Around here, when you get have bad enough traffic to delay you 15
minutes and you are stuck at a red light, chances are you won't
get through the light on one cycle, and chances are you won't be
in the first car in a very long queue. There's plenty of time
to make a quick call before there's even a slight chance that you
might get to start moving again.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Pat
...
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. You're riding a
motorcycle. Get it, a motorcycle. It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle....

In Wisconsin, a motorcycle endorsement is not needed for scooters with
less than 50cc displacement and a top speed of less than 30 mph.

In Illinois, there is a Class L endorsement for "Motor Driven Cycles" of
less than 150cc displacement, and Class M for "Motorcycles" with a 150cc
or more displacement.

[Pat]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve.  Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such.  It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter.  You're riding a
motorcycle.  Get it, a motorcycle.  It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle....

In Wisconsin, a motorcycle endorsement is not needed for scooters with
less than 50cc displacement and a top speed of less than 30 mph.
In Illinois, there is a Class L endorsement for "Motor Driven Cycles" of
less than 150cc displacement, and Class M for "Motorcycles" with a 150cc
or more displacement.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

If you're under 50cc and under 30mph, that would explain why you feel
unsafe. You are. You don't have enough weight for stability. You
don't have enough engine for safety. You don't have enough motor to
accelerate with the traffic (although there are some 2-strokes that
are pretty torquee).

For under 150cc, you're right. That's basically a bicycle with a
motor on the road. Still probably not safe on a road. That's why
they are used mostly for MX and such.

Go get a little 250cc. They are pretty nice little things. Plus they
have enough motor to get you out of trouble. At about 25 mph and
above, if you get into turning trouble, you have to accelerate to get
yourself out of trouble -- so you need to have enough engine to do
that or you will high-bar. That's not a lot of fun.

Better yet, go get yourself a 600cc crotch rocket and have some
fun !!! Sounds to me like a lot of guys in this NG need to let down
their hair and relax every once in a while.

For the record, I have a 50cc Honda that I don't ride, a 550 Honda
that I don't ride too much, and a 1300 Yamaha that's a nice ride.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. You're riding a
motorcycle. Get it, a motorcycle. It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle....

In Wisconsin, a motorcycle endorsement is not needed for scooters with
less than 50cc displacement and a top speed of less than 30 mph.
In Illinois, there is a Class L endorsement for "Motor Driven Cycles" of
less than 150cc displacement, and Class M for "Motorcycles" with a 150cc
or more displacement.

If you're under 50cc and under 30mph, that would explain why you feel
unsafe. You are. You don't have enough weight for stability. You
don't have enough engine for safety. You don't have enough motor to
accelerate with the traffic (although there are some 2-strokes that
are pretty torquee).

If one is riding only in downtown areas with 20 to 30 mph speed limits,
or low traffic residential areas, the 50cc scooters are fine. However, I
would not want to ride on higher speed urban arterials or rural highways
on one, unless there was a paved shoulder to "bail out" on when faster
traffic was coming from behind.

Post by Pat
For under 150cc, you're right. That's basically a bicycle with a
motor on the road. Still probably not safe on a road. That's why
they are used mostly for MX and such.
Go get a little 250cc. They are pretty nice little things. Plus they
have enough motor to get you out of trouble. At about 25 mph and
above, if you get into turning trouble, you have to accelerate to get
yourself out of trouble -- so you need to have enough engine to do
that or you will high-bar. That's not a lot of fun.
Better yet, go get yourself a 600cc crotch rocket and have some
fun !!! Sounds to me like a lot of guys in this NG need to let down
their hair and relax every once in a while.
For the record, I have a 50cc Honda that I don't ride, a 550 Honda
that I don't ride too much, and a 1300 Yamaha that's a nice ride.

I used a have a Honda CB400 that weighed about 390 pounds and had about
43 horsepower, and it was fine to ride on the freeway. It would out
accelerate most cars up to about 70 mph, and fuel mileage would
generally be 50-55 mpg.

[donquijote1954]

Indeed. When I was a child, we walked or rode our bicycles to get places.
It is a sick society that thinks a two ton steel cage is needed to haul
a child around.
--
Tom Sherman -

Roger that, and when I was a kid there weren't a whole lot of fat
kids, maybe theres a connection between being hauled around in MVs and
the percentage of fatties in the grammar schools?
We only played hockey when the ponds froze over, maybe having adults
structure and organize their games is a contributing factor, as well.
I certainly feel more empowered without having to pay daily homage to
the auto/oil complex. Kids ain't any dumber than their parents, just
shorter; I'm sure being hauled around to play games set up by their
parents, destroying their autonomy, weakens their sense of self
esteem. If it doesn't it surely should. So what can they do to
repair their broken sense of self worth - I know, buy a really
expensive car! that'll fix everything.

This sounds to me like trying to convince a dinosaur to evolve...

Here's an actual interview with one:

Q: What's up. How does it feel to be on the verge of extinction?

A: Nah, there will never be one.

Q: All the reports point to a mass extinction.

A: Don't pay attention to that. Those are rumors spread by those
little furry mammals...

Q: But your behavior is obviously stupid. All that voracity and
violence...

A: Only necessary to keep the size that I've got.

Q: And why do you need that size?

A: Because I rule the jungle.

Q: And why do you need to rule the jungle?

A: You ask too many questions... Remember I've got a pea-sized brain.

(And here the interview was terminated. Then the dinosaur killed a few
more mammals, and went to sleep --65 million years ago)

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship
Scenario 6: You're cruising along at 90 and hit a deer that didn't get
the memo about needing a transponder.

Again, the goal is not perfection, but a large improvement over the present
system.

Post by Amy Blankenship
Scenario 7: The government has some illicit activity going on somewhere
(who knows what _already_ get up to, much less what they _would_ get up to
if no one could get there) and they set up a set of transponders
preventing anyone who might call it to the public's awareness from getting
there.

Well that would be a big indicator to a lot of people, including the bad
guys, that an undercover operation is happening.

[Jack May]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians and
animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?

Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

We are heading to the where the car will not be able to easily hit anything
with a transponder, including people and pets. The car will automatically
brake for example to keep from hitting a child that runs out into the road.
That should not be hard once transponders become common.
Oh give me a break. If transponders work as you want, transportation

as we know it will come to a grinding halt with about 15 minutes.

Scenario 1: You're cruising down the highway at 70 and your cell

phone rings. You pull over and answer it (as is the law in the land
of the way-to-safe). The next car down the road approaches you from
the rear, gets within the whatever distance it is set to, and slams on
the breaks and panic-breaks so that you don't hit the stopped car.
Without a very complex set of visual cues, there's no real way to tell
if that car is in your lane or not. It could be dead-ahead but not in
your lane if there's a bend in the road. You car on the side of the
road just induced a huge traffic jam and probably a series of back-end
crashes. Oh yeah, the safety there !!!

The standard use very short pulses which can measure position to inches or
less. Your strawman is false.

Scenario 2: You're driving down the road and your car suddenly panic

stops for no reason. Everyone on the road does the same thing but
nothing's going on. Meanwhile, the kids hiding in the bushes who keep
turning a transponder (which they hid on the overpass right above your
lane) think it's a hoot to bring traffic to a stop whenever they want.

That transponder will identify its owner which will be recorded the blackbox
of many cars. The police will show up at the kid's house and arrest the
kid. Kids will quickly learn not to play with transponders,.

Scenario 3: You get used to the technology and start pushing the

limits of it. Your malfunctions some day. It doesn't stop you. You
kill the family of 4 in the Pinto ahead of you.

What do you not understand about increasing safety. We don't have to make
it perfect, just much better than the present system

Scenario 4: The government decides they are really safe and put

direction transponders in traffic lights to stop all cars at a red-
light so it cannot be ran. On a snowy day you look in your mirror and
realize the tractor trailor is skidding and can't stop. No one is
coming on the cross street in either direction. You try to run the
red light to get out of the way (which is, by the way, legal) but you
can't. Your only consolation is that you are crushed so bad that you
get on to the nightly news.

Another foolish strawman
Transponders. Yeah, great idea.

Yes they are, too bad you can't understand even their basics

[Doug Smith W9WI]

Post by Jack May
Probably. I think we are talking about a single chip. Since most people
carry a cell phone with them these day with location electronics, maybe the
law requires a transponder capability like the law now require location to
be determined by each cell phone for 911 responses.

Not a likely scenario.

- Objects in the road that weren't expected to end up in the road won't
have transponders. Wild animals. Debris blown into the road by storms.
Things that fall off vehicles. (semi retreads!)

- Who pays for the transponders? Required in every vehicle, every person,
and every domestic animal?

- As Amy suggests, it sure sounds like a golden opportunity for a massive
Denial of Service attack.

- Motorists won't accept it. Police can use the transponders to track
your location. Some don't want the police to know where you are at any
given second - others would simply be unhappy that it would make
enforcement of the speed limit much easier.

(they also won't accept it because it will make it impossible to pull off
stupid, dangerous moves in a bullheaded attempt to continue speeding when
traffic conditions don't permit it...)

(indeed, I think the latter condition will prevent the widespread adoption
of *any* type of autonomous collision avoidance system. A system that
*enforces* minimum safe following and passing distances will make it
impossible for the everyday 80mph speed bully to continue speeding. He'll
never accept it.)

[Miles Bader]

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

-Miles

[donquijote1954]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...
-Miles
--
Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions.

In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation
modes also pollute and kill people.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954
In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again.   The alternative transportation
modes also pollute and kill people.

Yeah, but so much less. You pollute needlessly. Just for the hell of
it, so you can show who's the boss.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation
modes also pollute and kill people.

Yep, cyclists kill a lot of innocent people. Sheesh!

[Jack May]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

Remember in my world, technology evolves over time to best meet the needs of
people. That is very different than your world where you want to force
people to use failed transportation systems that almost all of the people
have already rejected.

Obviously you want a dictatorship. I want a democracy.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Tom Sherman
How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
transponders?

I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
automobile from birth...

Remember in my world, technology evolves over time to best meet the needs of
people.  That is very different than your world where you want to force
people to use failed transportation systems that almost all of the people
have already rejected.
Obviously you want a dictatorship.   I want a democracy.

A democracy where SUVs (a symbol of power and wealth) rule the roads?
I thought democracy meant the poor people having a chance to ride
bikes and scooters...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers" -Aristotle

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.
Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely. So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.
What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years
is car to car digital communications. The communications between
cars will be used to prevent accidents and deaths.
Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive
action an what action should be taken. In extreme cases the
electronics in the cars will automatically take actions to control the
cars to prevent the accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?
If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.

Back in the 1950s in cycle training I was told to take up a space on the
road and not ride in the gutter. The result was that I was constantly
hooted by motorists for being in their way. Imagine that combined with
a system where they can whizz about ad lib in no danger of hurting
themselves or each other.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Exactly right. The statistics won't lie: 3,000 at the Towers (a one
time event) vs. 40,000 on the road every year, of which 25,000 could
be saved if we were to have the safety rates of Sweden.
Yet people are told that the issue is terrorism and not road
terrorism. They take the picture of your *** going through the
airport, but fail to put a speed camera at troublesome spots. It's
like they don't care...

You are assuming that speed is the main cause of road deaths which is
extremely unlikely.  So you don't have any approach to reduce road deaths.
What is being developed and will be on the market in five or so years is car
to car digital communications.   The communications between cars will be
used to prevent accidents and deaths.
Like commercial aircraft, the drivers will be warned to take evasive action
an what action should be taken.   In extreme cases the electronics in the
cars will automatically take actions to control the cars to prevent the
accidents.[...]

How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with transponders?
If motor vehicles are developed that will not hit each others, that will
make the cagers even more careless about cyclists and pedestrians.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The new technology the stupid and careless to drive. Well, they
already do, but they won't have accidents.

But unless the new techonologies allow them to fly high above, I don't
see them bringing any relief.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM.

That's a laudable quest, but how exactly
are you going to go about it? What means
and methods have you toward that end?
What is your strategy?
It has to be more effective than just
playing Usenet prophet.
You'd have to be something like RoboCop,
going around & fscking up road terrorists
("Freeze, scum.")
If you could make spike belts shoot out
of your wrists like Spiderman, than would
be something.
Watch out for The Green Hornet (& Kato.)
He /is/ a road terrorist. And I have my
suspicions about The Punisher and
Fat Freddie's cat.
Thank goodness we have anti-road-terrorist
guys like you to defend us good people.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Short of calling Superman or Batman, we can catch the bad guys in SUVs
by sticking together. Same strategy developed by the sardines 300
million years ago. Bicycles can get together and ride the lane, just
like any other vehicle. Similar to Critical Mass but without
antagonizing the motorists who in the end are also trapped in the
cages. And also, unlike Critical Mass, we would ride the road every
day for real transportation.

This T-shirt can fit the bill (I've renounced to any profit on it)...

http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories

Then if everything fails, we call on Clark Kent. ;)

[Pat]

Post by donquijote1954
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
near me.
Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
everything at once. Everybody does it, right?
Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.
It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
(see below), but that's another issue.
In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...
"Red light camera solution?"
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: **** taking away even more of our
: freedom.
Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?
Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?
The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...
---
jb3
http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0...
***
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Bana...
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

[Miles Bader]

Post by Pat
For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

I think you're projecting a bit there Pat...

Many of us on this group _love_ cities (I live in one of the biggest and
most crowded cities on the planet, and I'd never live anywhere else).
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change them for the better.

-Miles

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:3f333b8c-ba4e-49c3-b740-***@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?
-------------------------------------

You're apparently really eager to have the city follow you. Why are you so
unhappy having someplace decent to live that you want it to become a city?

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Pat
[...]
For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle,[...]

^^^^^^

We are not looking for places to sell things. Sheesh!

[Eric Vey]

Post by Pat
For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

I used to live in a small town until 4 years ago. I liked it, but I
wouldn't ride my bike there.

Driving around there I saw people in their 90's driving. They would
never have dared to drive in "the city" because it was "too dangerous."
Yet I routinely saw them drive through red lights that they just "didn't
see."

There was a bicyclist that was killed a few years ago while standing 30
feet off the shoulder of the road. That's a long way off, but the judge
said it was just a "tragic accident." When judges use the word "tragic"
that is shorthand for "no penalty."

It occurs to me now that when growing up in the country and riding my
Schwinn Varsity to school every day, a distance of over 7 miles, that if
some dumbass had driven up behind me at 65 MPH (the allowed speed limit
at the time on country roads) and plowed into me, the judge would have
ruled that it was just a "tragic accident."

[donquijote1954]

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
near me.
Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
everything at once. Everybody does it, right?
Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.
It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
(see below), but that's another issue.
In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...
"Red light camera solution?"
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: **** taking away even more of our
: freedom.
Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?
Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?
The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...
---
jb3
http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0...
***
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Bana...
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the
political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from
Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor) to
Copenhagen (where bike facilities made all the difference).

Again, if everybody followed your advice you'd lose your paradise
mighty soon.

[Jack May]

- Show quoted text -

Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the
political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from
Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor)

And all you have to do is get a lot of people to live on a few tens of
dollars per month to accept your horrible nightmare.

[Greg Sutherland]

Post by Tom Sherman
- Show quoted text -
Believe it or not, the cities can be tamed, provided there's the
political will to do it. There's plenty of evidence of it, from
Curitiba (where public transportation was the key taming factor)
And all you have to do is get a lot of people to live on a few tens of
dollars per month to accept your horrible nightmare.

Jack

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Greg

[Clark F Morris]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:08:30 -0800 (PST), Pat

Post by Pat

Post by donquijote1954
I've vowed to fight terrorism... ROAD TERRORISM. It's not even that I
go looking for trouble, trouble looks for me, and sometimes for those
near me.
Anyway, the first "accident" (see book "It's No Accident") happened to
a neighbor of mine who, like me, rides a scooter. Well, she started
from the green light when a car ran the light and... smashed leg and
who knows what else. Beautiful lady, beautiful no more. And she was
lucky it wasn't an SUV with their raised "macho" bumpers... Well, the
guy did stop (wasn't she lucky?) and was very sorry. But chances are
he was speeding, or on the cell phone or trying to beat the light or
everything at once. Everybody does it, right?
Well the second incident was really minor compared to this one, but
happened to my girlfriend with whom I was riding bike on the road...
First thing a car comes real close to her and cuts her off while
turning. I guess people riding bikes are not worth losing a few
seconds, and they are simply ignored. Well sometimes they get
noticed... Second thing she gets yelled at from an SUV, "asshole!"...
and my girlfriend gives her the finger (yes, she does it too) before
doing the smart move (?) and taking the sidewalk.
It would be so easy to put speed cameras on traffic lights and catch
all those terrorists with a License to Kill. And that would take some
politicians who make an issue out of traffic safety... or a revolution
(see below), but that's another issue.
In the meantime here's a debate from the past about terrorists and
speed cameras in civilized places like Germany...
"Red light camera solution?"
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: **** taking away even more of our
: freedom.
Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law" that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security
cameras in your place of business to protect you and your property?
Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill
anyone else I haven't really violated the law"?
The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive
with a clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your
picture taken. You can even save the cost of the hair spray...
---
jb3
http://groups.google.com/group/az.general/browse_thread/thread/8efbe0...
***
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Bana...
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

For all that you-all hate about cities -- the cars, the people, the
pollution, the SUVs, the lack of places to peddle, road rage and
everything else -- why don't you get the heck out and find yourself
someplace decent to live so that you can enjoy your lives?

Most of the problems cited in the posting could occur in rural areas
as well. Around my area in rural Nova Scotia, most of the roads have
little or no shoulder and virtually no roads have the 10 foot paved
shoulder, not even our limited access societies. However, in Nova
Scotia, most motorist will stop for someone trying to cross the
street.

Clark Morris