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

"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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

"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

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