 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
> enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and
> everything. You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether
> you're breaking the law without having to actually get arrested first.
>
> One of the problems with the anti-monopoly laws is that they are (or at
> least were) very vague in these areas, to the point where it's
> impossible to know before getting complained at that there's something
> wrong.
...so it's like Set Theory?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
>
> There's a reason to this:
>
> Phone calls distract you, that's plain fact (the mistake the legislation
> makes
> here is IMO that it distracts you no matter whether you use a handsfree
> unit or
> not, but that's another story).
And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
> So here you are, concentrated on your phone call - all the more (!) since
> you're
> in stationary traffic so what can possibly happen - and the car in front
> of you
> starts going again. Being in the middle of conversation, you kind of
> instinctively follow,
At which point you are using the phone whilst moving, which should be
illegal.
It being illegal to use it while stationary in a car is just ludicrous, in
what possible way is it dangerous to be using a phone in a stopped car? The
worst possible thing that can happen if you are using a phone in a stopped
car is that it stays stopped when it should be moving - at which point
someone will honk you and you'll go (compared to say if your car broke down
and you would be stuck there for much longer).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
> enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and
> everything. You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether
> you're breaking the law without having to actually get arrested first.
How do you define "dangerous driving" in the USA then? I don't see how you
can cover every possibility without some sort of "wooly" clause like "any
deliberate action likely to cause serious human injury or death".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from three
directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of the
situation.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> How do you define "dangerous driving" in the USA then?
I don't know, offhand. We probably call it "reckless driving" here. I never
figured out how they know it's reckless if you don't wreck. It's usually
something about how much above the speed limit you're going than is
appropriate. If you're less than the speed limit and collide with something,
it's obviously also dangerous.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
> what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from
> three directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of
> the situation.
*Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
(It was really hard to resist saying Singapore there!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when the
guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking out the
window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees someone
walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
>
> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when
> the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking
> out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees
> someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
motorways because it's too "dangerous".
Actually, most accidents happen at junctions. You've got people
starting, stopping, changing direction, and generally weaving around. On
a motorway, everybody's heading in the same direction.
Also, on lots of roads you get people, children and even small dogs
wandering across the road and getting mowed down. Generally doesn't
happen on motorways.
Admittedly what you *do* have on motorways is people who think they own
the road and it's OK to push other people off it. But they're a minority.
It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane, the
women jumps out of her skin.
She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
>>
>> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe
>> when the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even
>> looking out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when
>> she sees someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
>
> My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
> motorways because it's too "dangerous".
>
> Actually, most accidents happen at junctions. You've got people
> starting, stopping, changing direction, and generally weaving around. On
> a motorway, everybody's heading in the same direction.
>
> Also, on lots of roads you get people, children and even small dogs
> wandering across the road and getting mowed down. Generally doesn't
> happen on motorways.
>
> Admittedly what you *do* have on motorways is people who think they own
> the road and it's OK to push other people off it. But they're a minority.
>
> It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane, the
> women jumps out of her skin.
>
> She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
I once stopped the car and had my mother drive the rest of the way home
- it was safer that way because I was not distracted by her panics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
>> motorways because it's too "dangerous".
>>
>> It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane,
>> the women jumps out of her skin.
>>
>> She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
>
> I once stopped the car and had my mother drive the rest of the way home
> - it was safer that way because I was not distracted by her panics.
My grandmother can't drive. (Never has done.)
I _would_ make my mum drive - except that she *insists* on never
changing gear, and then wondering why the car is handling badly. Hint:
you're not supposed to take roundabouts in 5th gear! :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
