On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:32 AM, mike wrote:
Why does it matter what someone was doing on the cell phone?
Shouldn't
using it be enough? Start worrying about what they were doing and
suddenly
our idiot lawmakers will make it so certain apps are exempt.
This is just a M$ plot to suppress
Only slightly. With the introduction of micro brews it hastened
competition. Liquor is still only available at state run liquor stores, but the
alcohol content in brews have increase, except for the young crowd who still
think drinking a Bud is a cool thing. Thankfully I've grown passed
I suggest that cell phone records should be pulled in the event of an
accident and if a cell was in use, within, say 5 minutes, of the incident,
by ANYONE in the vehicle, that the driver should be considered, at the very
least, negligent. This would apply to all vehicles involved. I remind you
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123084040
*It found that month-to-month fluctuations in collision accident claims
didn't change before and after cell phone bans took effect. Nor did accident
patterns change compared with those in nearby states without cell phone
bans. *
*The
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:02 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123084040
*It found that month-to-month fluctuations in collision accident claims
didn't change before and after cell phone bans took effect. Nor did accident
patterns change
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Constance Warner cawar...@his.com wrote:
Distracted, cellphone-using, and computer-using drivers are a particular
menace to anyone who takes public transportation and who is therefore a
pedestrian a lot of the time.
For the most part, I see no great
Yes, I wasn't thinking about vulnerable pedestrians in the mix. The stakes
are considerably higher in the human vs. large, speeding machine context.
Good point. But even here I bet there will be a tech solution to preventing
car collisions with ANYTHING, humans, animals, trees, ice patches. Even
At 12:01 PM 1/28/2010, George Carr wrote:
But even here I bet there will be a tech solution to preventing
car collisions with ANYTHING, humans, animals, trees, ice patches. Even now
there are (infrared?) sensors that can pick out warm people on a dark night,
warning a driver of their presence. But
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM, George Carr
geo...@georgecarrstudio.com wrote:
The New York Times had an article about pedestrians who are getting injured
while walking and using electronic devices. One teenager gave himself a
concussion by walking head-first into a pole!
A TV station
I guess it must be something missing in my genes that I don't have the
constant urge to yak, yak, yak endlessly. All of the conversations I
overhear (not by choice - people seem to find it necessary to babble as
loudly as possible while using cellphones, regardless of how personal
their
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Mike Sloane mikeslo...@verizon.net wrote:
I guess it must be something missing in my genes that I don't have the
constant urge to yak, yak, yak endlessly. All of the conversations I
overhear (not by choice - people seem to find it necessary to babble as
loudly
I agree and some of the biggest offenders are law enforcement and government.
Most police, (Sheriffs, city, state) now have laptops mounted on
their consoles for data look ups of traffic stops etc. Plus they all
have cell phones (A lot down here push to talk) and I see these folks
constantly
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall
revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote:
I agree and some of the biggest offenders are law enforcement and
government.
Various of these agencies, as well as some businesses, are exempted
from state laws that could be used to prosecute those
At 08:03 AM 1/27/2010, you wrote:
I agree and some of the biggest offenders are law enforcement and government.
There is no official word yet on this one, but generally accepted
that this is what happened in this accident:
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20101210382
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Sue Cubic scu...@earthlink.net wrote:
The speed limit was 55 mph, but speed was not a factor based on interviews
with people who witnessed the crash, Molinari said. He also said drug
screening came back negative, but police haven't ruled out the possibility
Why does it matter what someone was doing on the cell phone? Shouldn't
using it be enough? Start worrying about what they were doing and suddenly
our idiot lawmakers will make it so certain apps are exempt.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:35 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote:
On
I get after my wife all the time for calling me while she knows I am
on the road. (MY blue tooth does not work.)
We've solved that one. Anyone in the family can call anyone else when we know
they're driving, but the driver won't answer (we don't even look at the phone).
Instead, the driver
Technology helped to create this problem but technology eventually will
provide solutions such as safer cars, reliable crash-avoidance systems, and
even vehicles that drive themselves. Meanwhile people need to focus on their
driving. Did I read somewhere about a car-based system that would disable
If traveling with someone I say its for you!
Stewart
At 10:18 AM 1/27/2010, you wrote:
I get after my wife all the time for calling me while she knows I am
on the road. (MY blue tooth does not work.)
We've solved that one. Anyone in the family can call anyone else
when we know they're
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, George Carr
geo...@georgecarrstudio.comwrote:
Technology helped to create this problem but technology eventually will
provide solutions such as safer cars, reliable crash-avoidance systems, and
even vehicles that drive themselves. Meanwhile people need to
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
Why does it matter what someone was doing on the cell phone? Shouldn't
using it be enough? Start worrying about what they were doing and suddenly
our idiot lawmakers will make it so certain apps are exempt.
I do not disagree.
Speaking to the negative drug test result. I'm still on the side that
cell phone or other similar electronic devices used while driving should be
charged with the same harshness as DUI. If someone is killed due to the use, it
should also be charged the same as killing while under the
Isn't this easy enough to find out? Don't cell phones and/or the
provider keep time stamped logs of usage?
Jeff Miles
jmile...@charter.net
Join my Mafia
http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=550968726
On Jan 27, 2010, at 6:35 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Partially it is the intolerance of anyone under the influence and
what they can get away with charging. Makes DA's look good tough on
crime etc. Also raises lots of dough for local municipality etc.
Plus the fact that some of these are usually plea dealed down it
gives them a stronger hand
Jeff, when I was growing up in Washington State, Indians could only buy
3.2 beer, no hard liquor and all liquor was available in a state liquor
store and you had to have a liquor card to buy. Also, it was against the
law to pick up a beer/drink from the bar and walk to your table with
it. A
At 08:36 PM 1/27/2010, you wrote:
Isn't this easy enough to find out? Don't cell phones
and/or the provider keep time stamped logs of usage?
Of course they do, but I doubt we ever hear the end of the story--if
anyone even wants to look. The funeral was huge--big parade of
police
Safer cars don't do very much for pedestrians, who are no match for
drivers on cellphones or computers.
Distracted, cellphone-using, and computer-using drivers are a
particular menace to anyone who takes public transportation and who
is therefore a pedestrian a lot of the time. Just try
27 matches
Mail list logo
