OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

I just took a short, hour each way, drive to help my son with a couple
things at his place.

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two. I wonder what
percentage of those calls were even vaguely "important." ... certainly all
were dangerous.

Got me thinking that each day several people probably hear a friend or
loved one die as the attempts at cell phone/ driving multi-tasking fail and
end in a crash.

Damn I'm glad I'm so very, very, unimportant. The world won't end if I
I'm a bit late and it gets by well enough without my being on a phone 85% of
the time ... or ever while driving


.... or fishing

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
I just took a short, hour each way, drive to help my son with a couple
things at his place.

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two. I wonder what
percentage of those calls were even vaguely "important." ... certainly all
were dangerous.

Got me thinking that each day several people probably hear a friend or
loved one die as the attempts at cell phone/ driving multi-tasking fail
and
end in a crash.

Damn I'm glad I'm so very, very, unimportant. The world won't end if I
I'm a bit late and it gets by well enough without my being on a phone 85%
of
the time ... or ever while driving


.... or fishing

You do yourself an injustice. You are important enough. Why, without you
we'd be two threads short on cell phone observations in the past 24 hours or
so.

Wolfgang
aw, shucks.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 19, 4:22 pm, "Larry L" wrote:
I wonder what
percentage of those calls were even vaguely "important."

I'll confess to the most egregious cell phone call I ever took. Under
a warm, blue summer sky, #1 offspring & I were paddling from Lily Bay
to Greenville across a wonderfully calm and beautiful Moosehead Lake.
Loons swam and dove nearby, clouds dotted the sky, the beauty of
nature and isolation all around us.

In the midst of this, I took a call from my mortgage banker. By way
of explanation, we'd departed for a week in Maine in the middle of a
re-fi process, and yeah, it really was important; but it still seemed,
well, just wrong. Dangerous, no; but me in a touring kayak does raise
the possibility of drowning.

Joe F.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rb608" wrote


In the midst of this, I took a call from my mortgage banker.


in Sept I was sitting at the Nature Conservancy cabin at Silver Creek
chatting with the volunteer hosts, a couple of retired teachers I've gotten
to know fairly well. My son is leaning towards teaching and we were
discussing that field.

There was some guy that showed up "to fish" that must have spent over an
hour on various calls ..... as his buddy got rigged .... then his buddy
stood and waited, ...then his buddy went down to the water, alone. You
could overhear enough of each call to know he was giving emplyee after
employee detailed instructions on what to do that day.

Jerry finally quietly said something to me about "can't believe he's been on
the phone this whole time on a fishing trip" .... which the cellslave heard
and looked up at, perturbed. Partly to take Jerry off the guys mind and
mostly because I'm a bit of an asshole, I then added loud enough to be
heard, " Yeah, if the business can't run for a couple days without him, he
must really suck as a manager. Employees should be better trained and
prepared than that."

I got a very seriously irritated look from "Mr Big Business" ... BUT ....
he was off the phone very soon after that and down at the creek. I like
to think I did him a favor, by ****ing him off. G

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:37:13 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


"rb608" wrote


In the midst of this, I took a call from my mortgage banker.


in Sept I was sitting at the Nature Conservancy cabin at Silver Creek
chatting with the volunteer hosts, a couple of retired teachers I've gotten
to know fairly well. My son is leaning towards teaching and we were
discussing that field.

There was some guy that showed up "to fish" that must have spent over an
hour on various calls ..... as his buddy got rigged .... then his buddy
stood and waited, ...then his buddy went down to the water, alone. You
could overhear enough of each call to know he was giving emplyee after
employee detailed instructions on what to do that day.

Jerry finally quietly said something to me about "can't believe he's been on
the phone this whole time on a fishing trip" .... which the cellslave heard
and looked up at, perturbed. Partly to take Jerry off the guys mind and
mostly because I'm a bit of an asshole, I then added loud enough to be
heard, " Yeah, if the business can't run for a couple days without him, he
must really suck as a manager. Employees should be better trained and
prepared than that."

I got a very seriously irritated look from "Mr Big Business" ... BUT ....
he was off the phone very soon after that and down at the creek. I like
to think I did him a favor, by ****ing him off. G

Speaking as another very-unimportant, non-business owning/managing Luddite:
It's gotten to where I can pick out a rolling cell user from a half-mile away.
You've probably seen the same phenomena: wandering out of their lanes,
changing speed for no reason, running right through traffic signals and
signage without warning.

At least a half-dozen times in the last couple of years, I've been stopped at
a red signal with a "user" next to me and seen them suddenly just take off
through the still-red light. Now, I *never* go through an intersection without
my foot hovering over the brake pedal.

And they are fricken' *everywhere* I wanna go...

/daytripper (I can't pass these idiots fast enough)

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
I just took a short, hour each way, drive to help my son with a couple
things at his place.

Being a bit "cell phone conscious" lately I really noticed the number of
people with the damn things stuck to their ears as they whipped through
lanes of traffic, eager to save, maybe, a second or two. I wonder what
percentage of those calls were even vaguely "important." ... certainly all
were dangerous.

Got me thinking that each day several people probably hear a friend or
loved one die as the attempts at cell phone/ driving multi-tasking fail
and
end in a crash.

Damn I'm glad I'm so very, very, unimportant. The world won't end if I
I'm a bit late and it gets by well enough without my being on a phone 85%
of
the time ... or ever while driving


.... or fishing

Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as dangerous as
drunk driving

Gordon

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Peter A. Collin" at the creek.

Joe the Elder offers---my wife and I came upon native Americans deep into
Alaska. They were harvesting salmon with pitchforks, chains with big snag
hooks, and even one guy with a shovel standing in the stream and throwing
them ashore. {all within their legal rights }I asked one guy if it was
allright if my wife stood beside their big pile of fish with a pitchfork
while I took her picture --he replied "ten dollars'--when I replied that
Idid not have that much money he replied--We take Plastic.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as dangerous
as drunk driving

.... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a minute too
soon.

Frank Sr.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Frank Church typed:
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:

Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as
dangerous as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a
minute too soon.

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-) The problem is not the
phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the idiots who
can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll assume that the "some
circumstances" clause in Gordon's note refers to someone getting injured or
killed by the offender. In that case, personal injury or negligent homicide
should kick in anyway, regardless if they were distracted by talking on
their cell phone, texting somone (yes, I've seen drivers text while
driving), or wiping their ass (no, I haven't seen this. . . yet.) Any laws
regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account the myriad
other distractions that now exist or will exist in the future. The only
mandate that should be put into effect is "while driving, get yer head out
of yer ass and drive!" Just my lil ol' opinion.

OBROFF Law: While driving past rivers, fly fishers must not turn their heads
and stare at the water.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

Any laws regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account
the myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist in the future.
The only mandate that should be put into effect is "while driving, get yer
head out of yer ass and drive!"

I sweartagod this is true! Last Sunday, while on my way home from a short
road trip, I glanced at a billboard on a section of freeway under
construction on the south side of downtown Milwaukee that showed a picture
of someone using a cell phone while driving and said "Inclement weather
doesn't cause accidents; distractions do!"

There was also a note indicating that this message was brought to us by the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and some fine print that I couldn't
quite make out 50+ miles per hour.

Wolfgang
um......did i mention that this was on a billboard......on the
freeway.....in a highly congested area with a heavy traffic flow....in a
construction zone?

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:
Frank Church typed:

"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as
dangerous as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a
minute too soon.


Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-) The problem is not the
phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the idiots who
can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll assume that the "some
circumstances" clause in Gordon's note refers to someone getting injured or
killed by the offender. In that case, personal injury or negligent homicide
should kick in anyway, regardless if they were distracted by talking on
their cell phone, texting somone (yes, I've seen drivers text while
driving), or wiping their ass (no, I haven't seen this. . . yet.) Any laws
regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account the myriad
other distractions that now exist or will exist in the future. The only
mandate that should be put into effect is "while driving, get yer head out
of yer ass and drive!" Just my lil ol' opinion.

OBROFF Law: While driving past rivers, fly fishers must not turn their heads
and stare at the water.

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively different
from most other distractions. People get so involved in their
conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they lose track
of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that. A law can do
something about the cell-phone distraction, though.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 6:28 am, "Peter A. Collin"
wrote:
Larry L wrote:

I got a very seriously irritated look from "Mr Big Business" ... BUT ....
he was off the phone very soon after that and down at the creek. I like
to think I did him a favor, by ****ing him off. G

This is a little tangential, but your story reminds me about some things.

It might be my catholic upbringing, but I really hate when merchants and
moneylenders set up their tables in my temple. I have been annoyed on
the stream when acquaintances hawk me to buy bamboo rods or books. The
ultimate was one time when I was on a great big trip to the far north,
going after giant brook trout.

I was swept up in the romantic notion of being miles and miles from any
human settlement, being guided by cree indians, watching the northern
lights, and all that. The trip delivered on all of my expectations,
save one incident. We ran into a bunch of loudmouth Texans.

The group were businessmen celebrating some recent success. One of
their group was an inventor, and they patented whatever product they
were selling. they were, they assured us, on their way to fantastic
wealth. Upon learning that one of the members in my group lived in a
foreign country, they immediately began "networking" him to help get
their business set up abroad. We were implored to join their group for
the rest of our stay. I cringed at the thought of tenting with pushy
guys who would spend all of their time telling us how rich they would
make us if we would do some favors for them. A wilderness trip is
supposed to get you away from all that! It was like telemarketers
showing up at your door - while you were in the middle of having sex.

Anyway, we parted company after an hour or two. We were left in peace
until the indians tried to snooker us out of more money.

I guess as long as there are even a few people around, you will have to
tolerate bull****.

Pete Collin
On behalf of the great majority of Texans who are not *those guys*,
let me assure you that we are not all boors and yahoos. It has been
my experience that *those guys* tend to be immigrants from other
quarters where they could not make a legitimate living. I won't say
where those other precincts are so as not to offend anybody on this
forum, but they are definitely not from here.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 9:27 am, "Tim J."
wrote:
The problem is not the
phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the idiots who
can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I gotta say, the vast majority of phone users I've seen who have
****ed me off are the ones who get so engrossed in their phone
conversation that they slooooow dooooown to the point of being an
obstruction. Can't tell you how many times I've been caught behind
one of those rolling backups to finally get to the front & find some
idiot (yes, usually female) chatting away while doing 5 miles under
the limit in the fast lane.

This isn't limited to cell phone use, of course. The majority of
drivers who royally **** me off are the ones who seem oblivious to the
fact they're part of a larger conglomeration of fellow humans on the
road and have no apparent recognition of their responsibilities
outside their own cocoon.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

rw typed:
Tim J. wrote:
Frank Church typed:
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:

Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in
some circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as
dangerous as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a
minute too soon.

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-) The problem is not
the phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the
idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll assume
that the "some circumstances" clause in Gordon's note refers to
someone getting injured or killed by the offender. In that case,
personal injury or negligent homicide should kick in anyway,
regardless if they were distracted by talking on their cell phone,
texting somone (yes, I've seen drivers text while driving), or
wiping their ass (no, I haven't seen this. . . yet.) Any laws
regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account the
myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist in the
future. The only mandate that should be put into effect is "while
driving, get yer head out of yer ass and drive!" Just my lil ol'
opinion. OBROFF Law: While driving past rivers, fly fishers must not
turn
their heads and stare at the water.

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.

Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts conversation of
any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their ass" thing, but we
could just pass a law per day until we've hit all the possibilities.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Wolfgang typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...

Any laws regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into
account the myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist
in the future. The only mandate that should be put into effect is
"while driving, get yer head out of yer ass and drive!"

I sweartagod this is true! Last Sunday, while on my way home from a
short road trip, I glanced at a billboard on a section of freeway
under construction on the south side of downtown Milwaukee that
showed a picture of someone using a cell phone while driving and said
"Inclement weather doesn't cause accidents; distractions do!"

There was also a note indicating that this message was brought to us
by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and some fine print
that I couldn't quite make out 50+ miles per hour.

Wolfgang
um......did i mention that this was on a billboard......on the
freeway.....in a highly congested area with a heavy traffic
flow....in a construction zone?

DAMMIT! There should be a law. . . ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Wolfgang typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...

Any laws regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into
account the myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist
in the future. The only mandate that should be put into effect is
"while driving, get yer head out of yer ass and drive!"

I sweartagod this is true! Last Sunday, while on my way home from a
short road trip, I glanced at a billboard on a section of freeway
under construction on the south side of downtown Milwaukee that
showed a picture of someone using a cell phone while driving and said
"Inclement weather doesn't cause accidents; distractions do!"

There was also a note indicating that this message was brought to us
by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and some fine print
that I couldn't quite make out 50+ miles per hour.

Wolfgang
um......did i mention that this was on a billboard......on the
freeway.....in a highly congested area with a heavy traffic
flow....in a construction zone?

DAMMIT! There should be a law. . . ;-)

Wouldn't do any good. Those at the helm would just wipe their asses with
it. :)

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Frank Church" wrote in message
96...
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in some
circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as dangerous
as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a minute
too
soon.

It's starting the 1st of the year hear in Washington. I drive 50 - 60
minutes each way to work. I would guess 60 +% of the people I see or pass in
the morning have cell phones stuck to their head and probably more than that
on the drive home

Washington state law:
Drivers may not send, read or write a text message while driving (eff.
1/1/2008) unless operating an emergency vehicle or reporting an emergency or
illegal activity.
Hands free cell phone devices are required while operating a vehicle (eff.
7/1/2008). Exempts drivers of emergency vehicles and tow trucks, drivers who
have hearing aids and drivers reporting emergencies or illegal activities.
Secondary enforcement.

JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

It's starting the 1st of the year hear in Washington. I drive 50 - 60
minutes each way to work. I would guess 60 +% of the people I see or pass
in the morning have cell phones stuck to their head and probably more than
that on the drive home

Washington state law:
Drivers may not send, read or write a text message while driving (eff.
1/1/2008) unless operating an emergency vehicle or reporting an emergency
or illegal activity.
Hands free cell phone devices are required while operating a vehicle (eff.
7/1/2008). Exempts drivers of emergency vehicles and tow trucks, drivers
who have hearing aids and drivers reporting emergencies or illegal
activities. Secondary enforcement.

JT

DoH!

here, not hear...

JT
who should probably read what I write before posting...

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 10:43 am, "Peter A. Collin"
wrote:

"LAHT ONNA RAFSUM FONNA YEW GUNNA TRAH SOOKLES RAHT!"

Wayne? Wayne Knight? Is that you?

:-)

Bill
(I know I left that decoder ring around here somewhere....)

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 12:00 pm, "JT" wrote:
here, not hear...

Here here!

Joe F.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:

rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:

Frank Church typed:

"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in
some circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as
dangerous as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a
minute too soon.

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-) The problem is not
the phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the
idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll assume
that the "some circumstances" clause in Gordon's note refers to
someone getting injured or killed by the offender. In that case,
personal injury or negligent homicide should kick in anyway,
regardless if they were distracted by talking on their cell phone,
texting somone (yes, I've seen drivers text while driving), or
wiping their ass (no, I haven't seen this. . . yet.) Any laws
regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account the
myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist in the
future. The only mandate that should be put into effect is "while
driving, get yer head out of yer ass and drive!" Just my lil ol'
opinion. OBROFF Law: While driving past rivers, fly fishers must not
turn
their heads and stare at the water.

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts conversation of
any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their ass" thing, but we
could just pass a law per day until we've hit all the possibilities.

now you're talking...and make violations punishable by incarceration.
But, i'm not representing the ass-wipers...i'll leave that group to my
friends jim and wayno. They know how to turn ****e into shinola.

jeff

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-)

Bite me Timmy!! Liberal, HA! Them's fightin' words.
Come to think of it, bite me again!

Frank Sr.
Frothing at the mouth in Fremont

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Jeff typed:
snip
But, i'm not representing the ass-wipers...i'll leave that group to my
friends jim and wayno. They know how to turn ****e into shinola.

I've heard they can also change it back again. Is there any truth to that?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts conversation of
any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their ass" thing, but we
could just pass a law per day until we've hit all the possibilities.

When it comes to laws, I'm a utilitarian. Laws can reasonably solve some
problems, but not others. So I'm against a lip movement law. It's not
practical.

There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or worse
a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for it.

JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or
worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for
it.

Shoot a few doctors and insurance company executives.....selected at random.
This problem will go away rather more quickly than you might suppose.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or worse
a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for it.

JT




That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 3:10 pm, rw wrote:
That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

There are lot of good arguments for universal health insurance; but i
don't see that one.


Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

There's a whole bunch of grey area between that black & white.
Somewhere (and I'm not saying where), a line must be drawn between
personal freedom and public cost. It's not a question of if, but
where.

Heck, I wouldn't flinch at paying an extra $5 in taxes to allow some
idiot biker the freedom to smash his unhelmeted head into a curb; but
I'd draw the line if that was going to cost me $1000, and I'd be
screaming for mandatory helmet laws. Unfortunately, somebody has to
place a monetary value on stuff like that, and the politically
palatable answer will be somewhere in between.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or
worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for
it.

JT


That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

I see both sides, however, someone is going to have to pay for universal
health care and it will be the guy/gal working for a living. That troubles
me...

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous things
(dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear seat
belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't do, or
must do, for our own good.

True that, and stupid people will contiue doing stupid things no matter what
the laws says.

JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
m...
JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The
problem comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical
insurance goes through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for
several months or worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we
end up paying for it.

JT


That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

I see both sides,

Not very clearly, I think. Let's see.

however, someone is going to have to pay for universal health care and it
will be the guy/gal working for a living.

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised to
learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its endless
circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but whether the
feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the bits that go to
health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in and of itself. The
real question is who makes more efficient use of it en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

True that, and stupid people will contiue doing stupid things no matter
what the laws says.

Everybody does stupid things. However, not everybody makes a point of
drawing attention to them in a public forum.

Wolfgang

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:56:58 -0800, "JT" wrote:


"rw" wrote in message
om...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.

I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or worse
a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for it.

JT

Look at the bright side of non-helmeted bikers/non-seatbelt-wearing drivers:
more organ donors.

/daytripper (they also serve who croaketh themselves)

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

rw typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts
conversation of any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping
their ass" thing, but we could just pass a law per day until we've
hit all the possibilities.

When it comes to laws, I'm a utilitarian. Laws can reasonably solve
some problems, but not others. So I'm against a lip movement law.
It's not practical.

There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet
and seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public
safety.

Okay. So mobile ass-wiping is okay or not? What about changing a cassette
tape (CD for you younguns)? Or eating a Big Mac? Or wacking your kid in the
backseat who's playing "I'm not touching you" with his younger sister? What
about that Cheetos that fell to the car floor and is still under the
five-second rule? If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 3:47 pm, "JT" wrote:
I see both sides, however, someone is going to have to pay for universal
health care and it will be the guy/gal working for a living. That troubles
me...

The fact is, you're already paying for it. We already have universal
health care; but we pay for a bad system in stupid ways. Every time
a poor or uninsured person shows up at the ER with a seriously
progressed condition, you're paying thousands to deal with that
through your tax dollars when you could have paid significantly less
to give them the insurance they'd need to see a doctor when it was
something minor. When a mother can't go to work because her child is
sick, you're paying for that. When kids miss school due to
preventable illnesses, you're paying for the consequences of that.

The difference is that the public gets to enjoy the illusion it's not
socialized medicine just because we don't pay it directly or call a
spade a spade; but we pay for it through lost productivity, crime,
welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and dozens of other costly consequences
of people not getting the medical care they need.

Meanwhile, the medical and pharmaceutical industries get to keep
cashing in. *That* should trouble you.

Joe F.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

Tim J. wrote:

If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

rw typed:
Tim J. wrote:

If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.

But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised to
learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its
endless circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but
whether the feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the bits
that go to health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in and of
itself. The real question is who makes more efficient use of it en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,
how flexibile would a government mandated system be, will people increase
there doctor visits, medications, etc... making the cost for health care
much more than they currently are, will healthy people pay the burden for
people that are not so healthy, transitioning to a universal health care,
lost jobs, business closure, if spending is out of control there will be no
turning back with a government run plan.

JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, "JT" wrote:
What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,


I know that right now, the cost of my (employer subsidized) medical
insurance is almost double my federal withholding. You could double
my taxes, give me free health care, and I'd be way, way ahead $-wise.

Joe F.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, "JT" wrote:
What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government
take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care
would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,


I know that right now, the cost of my (employer subsidized) medical
insurance is almost double my federal withholding. You could double
my taxes, give me free health care, and I'd be way, way ahead $-wise.

Joe F.

Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

JT

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

On Dec 20, 5:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

I have no reason to think not. The "government inefficiency will kill
you" meme is hyperbole. Yeah, the bureaucracy ****s up occasionally,
and I just might be one of the unlucky ones; but frankly, even with
what I pay in insurance, I couldn't likely afford the co-pay for a
seriously expensive condition anyway. My choices right now would be
sell my house or die. Luckily, I'm only dealing in a hypothetical;
but it's a real decision for far too many under the present system,
and I ain't getting any younger.

Joe F.

OT has to happen all the time. I guess
 

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 5:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

I have no reason to think not. The "government inefficiency will kill
you" meme is hyperbole. Yeah, the bureaucracy ****s up occasionally,
and I just might be one of the unlucky ones; but frankly, even with
what I pay in insurance, I couldn't likely afford the co-pay for a
seriously expensive condition anyway. My choices right now would be
sell my house or die. Luckily, I'm only dealing in a hypothetical;
but it's a real decision for far too many under the present system,
and I ain't getting any younger.

Joe F.

A great deal of what I'm reading about Canadian health care leads me to
believe people are put on long waiting lists for serious surgeries and many
time die waiting. I find it hard to believe your annual maximum out of
pocket medical insurance deductible would force you to sell your home? We
don't have a great plan by any means and my maximum out of pocket is
$2250.00 on the value plan. If I were on the core plan it would be $900.00
out of pocket.

JT