Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature, 
>> they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free 
>> and the jury isn't in any trouble.
> 
>   Isn't that a case of mistrial? Is the procedure in case of mistrial
> really letting the accused go free, rather than setting up a new trial?

You mean if the jury doesn't follow the laws? Well, there's two.

If you mean "the jury talks to someone they shouldn't" or "the jury is 
bribed to vote one way or the other", yes, that's a mistrial.

What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.  Like, in the days when the USA 
still had slavery, the law was that a slave who escaped and went to an area 
where there wasn't slavery still had to be sent back if he got caught. Many 
juries refused to enforce this law, since they saw slavery as immoral even 
if legal.

I could also see if (say) abortion were made unconditionally illegal and the 
punishment was 20 years in jail for the mother, I could easily see juries 
simply saying "Nope, the mother is innocent" even if every piece of evidence 
including videotapes and confessions by the doctors was presented, yes?

For that, you can't punish the jury. I meant by "the jury not following the 
laws", I meant the laws that say "you should convict someone if the evidence 
is overwhelming."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
> are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.

  Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is this
just Hollywood mythology?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
>> are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.
> 
>   Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is this
> just Hollywood mythology?

Only for innocence, not for guilt.

I.e., the jury can come back and say "he's guilty", and the judge can say 
"since no evidence was supplied at all, *I* say he's innocent."

But if the jury says "innocent", that's it, you're done. *And* they don't 
get to try again.  (Appeals by prosecution notwithstanding.)

In theory, once the first witness is called and asked a question, the trial 
has begun and if that jury says you're innocent, you're finished.

In practice, there are multiple jurisdictions with the same laws (so you 
might get tried for both state drug laws and federal drug laws for the same 
bag of drugs), and an appeal can drag out the process, and a mistrial can 
start it over. Stuff like mistrials are rare enough to make the news, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> His medical expertise could also be a liability to the prosecution, so
>> add to that that he's been involved in malpractice suits and he would
>> be seen as undesirable in some instances.
> 
> Also, neither side wants an expert on the jury, as the others might give
> his opinion more weight than their own. If you have a case about
> someone's injuries, you're not going to have a doctor on the jury,
> because the rest of the jury would just defer to the doctor on the
> opinion of whether (say) the defendant was strong enough to cause that
> kind of injury.
> 
> They want you looking at the evidence presented, not the evidence
> someone else learned in school. :-)

Yep, that's certainly true, too.

It can be risky to play the odds if the jury has an expert on it; if you 
(as the prosecution or the defense) can convince the expert, then that 
can work to your side's favour.

In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to 
think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were 
correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't 
really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire, 
either - it's not a long process.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:18:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In the appeals process, bench trials are standard operating procedure,
>> again as I understand it - because the judge is responsible for
>> deciding if the lower court made a reversible error.
> 
> Right. In the appeals case, there's no jury, because the jury already
> saw all the facts. The appeal is checking that the legal system did the
> right thing, not arguing that it came to the wrong conclusion.

Well, the jury in the case of  a jury trial.  Obviously a jury didn't see 
the facts if the defense opted for a bench trial in the lower court. :-)

> In other words, if you're guilty and everyone followed the rules, you
> won't correctly go free by appealing the case.
> 
> Appeals aren't "I didn't do it."  Appeals are "the judge allowed the
> wrong evidence" or "the judge miscalculated how much I owe" or even "the
> judge shouldn't have been allowed to take the case in the first place."

Yep - that's what's meant by "reversible error" - it's something the 
court did wrong procedurally.  That can come down to a dispute over facts 
of the case, but usually this happens because of a question as to whether 
evidence should have been admitted or not.

> If the jury believed the prosecution witness and not the defense
> witness, you're not going to get out of that with an appeal.

Yep.

>> But in normal circumstances in the US, the judge interprets the law for
>> the jury, the jury determines the facts, and decides if the facts
>> support the charge based on the law or laws that the defendant is
>> accused of breaking were in fact broken.
> 
> And the judge tries to convince the jury to obey the law, and to convict
> even if they think it's a bad law, but there's no actual requirement to
> do so, and indeed the founders of the country explicitly put into their
> writings that the jury was there to keep the new rulers from passing bad
> laws.

Yep, that's true as well.  Activist juries are everywhere! ;-)

> Not that *that* worked out too well... :-)

LOL, too true...too true.

>> The prosecution and the defense put together a packet for the jury,
>> though, that outlines different perspectives on the law.  The packets
>> from both sides are given to the jury to read and often you can't tell
>> which comes from who (they're not identified in my experience).
> 
> I didn't get one of those. But then, it was just breaking into a car. A
> pretty straightforward crime.

Yeah, I suppose it might vary from locale to locale or depend on the case.

>> I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually
>> quite fascinating, at least I think so.
> 
> It can be annoying for busy people to take three to five days off work
> without pay in order to listen to some low-life who broke into a car
> trying to get out of the punishment. :-)

Yeah, but the thing that gets me is the people who seem to wear it as a 
badge of pride that they got out of it.  I've been fortunate, I guess - 
the companies I've worked for paid me for absence because I've been 
called up for jury duty.

> It might have been more interesting in cases where there was more to it,
> like the one where the father was accused of mishandling the baby, or
> where the sailor was accused of rape (along with "breaking and entering
> with grave bodily harm") six months after the fact because he followed
> the two ladies into their house and was invited to sleep with both of
> them at once.

Yeah.  Now my wife was called up about a year ago for the federal court 
here in Salt Lake City.  She actually wanted to sit it, but couldn't 
because the circumstances of the case closely resembled her ex's family 
situation and the subject matter was personally distressing for her as a 
result.

Something like that I can completely understand.  It's a shame, though, 
because if it had been something else, she probably would've enjoyed 
participating.

Federal jury duty gets you out of all jury duty for something like 5 
years, too (longer than the county courts, but I forget the actual 
amounts of time).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:23:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like
>> $20/ day, but the government does pay the jury.
> 
> Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's
> parking reimbursement. :-)

Yeah, it's not a lot.  Enough to pay for lunch and parking.

Well, here, the parking at the courthouse is at no cost.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:53:02 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the
>> legislature, they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the
>> accused goes free and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary
>> reason for having a jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by
>> simply refusing to convict anyone.
> 
> Is that anything more than a theory?

It depends on the jury.  If it's a bunch of people who "couldn't get out 
of jury duty", then it probably won't happen.

But if there's one person on the jury who makes a point of something 
that's not right, then it can happen.

The drug case I sat in on (which I mentioned earlier), there was 
documentation stating that possession of drug paraphernalia required a 
demonstration of intent to use it.  That wasn't something that was 
addressed at all by the prosecution in the case.

In our initial vote, everyone but me voted that he was guilty of the 
charges.  I didn't vote that way because of that one stipulation.  That 
sparked discussion, and ultimately I agreed that the case history was 
more of an exception than a precedent, so I also voted him guilty.

But that point is what prompted my discussion with the judge after the 
case was over, too.

The thing that stuck with me the most was how much respect the court 
showed the jury - including both the prosecution and defense attorneys.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:33:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain
>>> laws that are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.
>> 
>>   Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is
>>   this
>> just Hollywood mythology?
> 
> Only for innocence, not for guilt.

Just to clarify, I think what you're saying here is that the judge can 
"set aside" a guilty verdict, but not a verdict of "not guilty".

IOW, the judge can't unilaterally decide that the jury erred and set a 
guilty perp free, only that the jury might have convicted someone in 
spite of the prosecution not actually proving their case.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 22:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
> In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to 
> think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were 
> correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't 
> really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire, 
> either - it's not a long process.

That seems to imply that it is important information that either side 
rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information 
that is not passed on to the final jury.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The thing that stuck with me the most was how much respect the court 
> showed the jury - including both the prosecution and defense attorneys.

*Nobody* wants to piss off the jury. :-)

And yeah, I was mostly speaking theory, in terms of juries throwing things out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Just to clarify, I think what you're saying here is that the judge can 
> "set aside" a guilty verdict, but not a verdict of "not guilty".

That is my understanding, yes. Not being a lawyer, ....

> IOW, the judge can't unilaterally decide that the jury erred and set a 
> guilty perp free, only that the jury might have convicted someone in 
> spite of the prosecution not actually proving their case.

Those are saying the same thing?  The judge can certainly say "the accused 
goes free in spite of the evidence."  But that's the sort of thing that the 
appeal (by the prosecution) addresses - the judge's misbehavior.

If the jury says "there wasn't enough evidence" even if there was, then the 
appeals court can't reverse that, because the appeals court is looking at 
the behavior of the judge and lawyers, not the behavior of the jury.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> That seems to imply that it is important information that either side 
> rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information 
> that is not passed on to the final jury.

IME, all the potential jurors are sitting in the room while this goes on. 
It's usually not surprising. Most of the questions are "do you know anyone 
in the room?"   "Has something like this happened to you?"   And so on.

If it's a medical malpractice case involving (say) someone's eyes, and 
prosecution says "Are you a opthamologist?" I don't think it's prejudicial 
to dismiss that guy by either side. Usually the judge will dismiss him 
before it gets to the lawyers.

I.e., the judge asks some questions, and if the judge accepts, the lawyers 
get to ask. Usually the judge will kick out anyone like that first.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, the jury in the case of  a jury trial.  Obviously a jury didn't see 
> the facts if the defense opted for a bench trial in the lower court. :-)

True. I'm not sure how it works in that case.

> Yep - that's what's meant by "reversible error" - it's something the 
> court did wrong procedurally.  That can come down to a dispute over facts 
> of the case, but usually this happens because of a question as to whether 
> evidence should have been admitted or not.

I've often seen it even for things like "the lady who got burned by hot 
coffee shouldn't get that much compensation", or "you took interest into 
account when you shouldn't have in calculating the fine" or whatever.

Rare that it goes all the way back to reversing the decision.

> Yeah, but the thing that gets me is the people who seem to wear it as a 
> badge of pride that they got out of it. 

Here, it used to be you sat around for a week waiting to get seated. Now, if 
you don't get a case on the first day, you're done for the year. If you get 
a case, you're done for three years. I think that soothed a lot of annoyed 
people.

> Federal jury duty gets you out of all jury duty for something like 5 
> years, too (longer than the county courts, but I forget the actual 
> amounts of time).

I would think it depends on the state, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:19:11 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 25-3-2009 22:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>> In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to
>> think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were
>> correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't
>> really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire,
>> either - it's not a long process.
> 
> That seems to imply that it is important information that either side
> rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information
> that is not passed on to the final jury.

Rejected someone as an expert *on the jury*.  Expert witnesses are an 
entirely different matter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:42:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, the jury in the case of  a jury trial.  Obviously a jury didn't
>> see the facts if the defense opted for a bench trial in the lower
>> court. :-)
> 
> True. I'm not sure how it works in that case.

From my understanding, it works pretty much the same; it's a defense 
tactic (and choice) to opt for a bench trial vs. a jury trial, IMO a 
defendant who is not sympathetic is probably more likely to opt for a 
judge if the impression is that a judge will be able to set aside 
personal feelings better than 12 "peers".

>> Yep - that's what's meant by "reversible error" - it's something the
>> court did wrong procedurally.  That can come down to a dispute over
>> facts of the case, but usually this happens because of a question as to
>> whether evidence should have been admitted or not.
> 
> I've often seen it even for things like "the lady who got burned by hot
> coffee shouldn't get that much compensation", or "you took interest into
> account when you shouldn't have in calculating the fine" or whatever.
> 
> Rare that it goes all the way back to reversing the decision.

Yeah, in the case of Stella (to whom you refer here), the verdict wasn't 
overturned, but the punitive damages awarded by the jury were, as I 
understand it.  That's not a question of changing the verdict, though, 
just the damages - and I was thinking criminal courts, in civil courts 
the procedures are a bit different because the threshold isn't "beyond a 
reasonable doubt", which is why you get things like OJ being acquitted of 
murdering his wife, but being convicted in the wrongful death suit that 
followed.

>> Yeah, but the thing that gets me is the people who seem to wear it as a
>> badge of pride that they got out of it.
> 
> Here, it used to be you sat around for a week waiting to get seated.
> Now, if you don't get a case on the first day, you're done for the year.
> If you get a case, you're done for three years. I think that soothed a
> lot of annoyed people.

That is pretty much the case here as well - they tell you they might call 
you back on the second day (technically, you are supposed to call an 
automated message) but usually if you're not picked on Monday, you won't 
be called up again until your name comes up again.

>> Federal jury duty gets you out of all jury duty for something like 5
>> years, too (longer than the county courts, but I forget the actual
>> amounts of time).
> 
> I would think it depends on the state, really.

I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was 
told.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:34:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The thing that stuck with me the most was how much respect the court
>> showed the jury - including both the prosecution and defense attorneys.
> 
> *Nobody* wants to piss off the jury. :-)

Very true.  But I found that even after the case was over; the defense 
lawyer came in and talked to us to find out what she could have done 
differently.

We suggested "put your client on the stand rather than trying to imply he 
was covering for his wife or some BS like that", to which she basically 
admitted he was guilty as hell.

> And yeah, I was mostly speaking theory, in terms of juries throwing
> things out.

Yeah, that's what I thought. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:36:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Just to clarify, I think what you're saying here is that the judge can
>> "set aside" a guilty verdict, but not a verdict of "not guilty".
> 
> That is my understanding, yes. Not being a lawyer, ....

Same here, though I do have a fascination with the profession.  If I were 
more motivated, I might have chosen that career.  But there are a couple 
of lawyers in my (not immediate) family - two cousins, actually.

>> IOW, the judge can't unilaterally decide that the jury erred and set a
>> guilty perp free, only that the jury might have convicted someone in
>> spite of the prosecution not actually proving their case.
> 
> Those are saying the same thing?  The judge can certainly say "the
> accused goes free in spite of the evidence."  But that's the sort of
> thing that the appeal (by the prosecution) addresses - the judge's
> misbehavior.

No, actually not the same thing.  As I understand it, a judge can 
determine that even though the jury convicted the defendant the 
prosecution didn't actually make their case and can reverse the verdict.

The judge cannot (again in my understanding) decide that the jury's "not 
guilty" verdict is incorrect and overturn the verdict to "guilty".

I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the 
judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a "not 
guilty" verdict.

> If the jury says "there wasn't enough evidence" even if there was, then
> the appeals court can't reverse that, because the appeals court is
> looking at the behavior of the judge and lawyers, not the behavior of
> the jury.

Right.  But if a judge overturns a "guilty" verdict (ie, makes "guilty" 
into "not guilty"), the prosecution can appeal, at least to my 
understanding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the 
> judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a "not 
> guilty" verdict.

Right. That just isn't what you *said*. :-)  I think you just got too 
negatives into the sentence. :-)

> Right.  But if a judge overturns a "guilty" verdict (ie, makes "guilty" 
> into "not guilty"), the prosecution can appeal, at least to my 
> understanding.

I would certainly expect so.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:12:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the
>> judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a
>> "not guilty" verdict.
> 
> Right. That just isn't what you *said*. :-)  I think you just got too
> negatives into the sentence. :-)

Well, I could try to parse it, but I've had a long day trying to fix a 
bunch of contracts that got messed up. :-(

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> From my understanding, it works pretty much the same;

So the facts the trial judge decides are worth aren't overturnable? I guess 
I can see how that works, OK.

>> Rare that it goes all the way back to reversing the decision.
> 
> Yeah, in the case of Stella (to whom you refer here), the verdict wasn't 
> overturned, but the punitive damages awarded by the jury were, as I 
> understand it.  That's not a question of changing the verdict, though, 
> just the damages - and I was thinking criminal courts, in civil courts 
> the procedures are a bit different because the threshold isn't "beyond a 
> reasonable doubt", which is why you get things like OJ being acquitted of 
> murdering his wife, but being convicted in the wrongful death suit that 
> followed.

Right.

> I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was 
> told.

Hmmm. OK. Could be. :-)  I would think how soon you can be called back to a 
state trial after doing a federal trial would be up to the states, but maybe 
not.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.

This is the kind of thing I meant by that, btw:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drunken-driving-court-0324.artmar24,0,4129048.story

This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:55:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> From my understanding, it works pretty much the same;
> 
> So the facts the trial judge decides are worth aren't overturnable? I
> guess I can see how that works, OK.

Well, appeals aren't based on facts but procedures.  If the judge admits 
evidence that shouldn't be admitted, it'd be the same sort of thing as 
with a jury trial, because it's a reversible error.

>> I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was
>> told.
> 
> Hmmm. OK. Could be. :-)  I would think how soon you can be called back
> to a state trial after doing a federal trial would be up to the states,
> but maybe not.

What my wife was told was that she's not eligible to be called for state 
or federal jury duty for 2 years, and she got something to show the state/
county courts that she was called for federal duty.

But I'm not sure (and neither is she) whether that's because Utah has a 2 
year minimum wait between times you're called or if the federal overrides 
the state/county courts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:12:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.
> 
> This is the kind of thing I meant by that, btw:
> 
> http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drunken-driving-
court-0324.artmar24,0,4129048.story
> 
> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?" Is sitting in your
> running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

Heh, I saw that one come up recently.  Surprising that I'd have been 
guilty of DUI for sitting in the car with the AC blowing to help me 
"sober up" after a good dinner one night, even though I wasn't moving at 
all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Heh, I saw that one come up recently. 

My brother (a cop) once stopped a guy in a truck for using the commuter 
lane[1] with only one person in the truck. His argument was that since the 
back of the truck held a couple dozen frozen bodies on the way to the 
medical school, he had plenty of people to meet the commuter limit. Judge 
said "We'll let you off this time, but don't do it again." :-)

There was also a case here where a lady got stopped for being alone in the 
commuter lane. She pointed out she's 8 months pregnant, and if she can't 
have an abortion it must be because the "baby" counts.  The judges actually 
agreed with this one. :-)




[1] Special lane on the freeway reserved for cars with multiple people, 
which tends to go faster during rush-hour, because americans are too lazy to 
find neighbors going the same way at the same time to save gas. :-)
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:12:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Heh, I saw that one come up recently.
> 
> My brother (a cop) once stopped a guy in a truck for using the commuter
> lane[1] with only one person in the truck. His argument was that since
> the back of the truck held a couple dozen frozen bodies on the way to
> the medical school, he had plenty of people to meet the commuter limit.
> Judge said "We'll let you off this time, but don't do it again." :-)

Heh.....That's good, I know my cousin (who's a Sheriff's deputy) has lots 
of stories like that.  Best quote from him to date:  "I love my job.  
Where else do I get to shoot guns, drive fast, and mess with people?"

> There was also a case here where a lady got stopped for being alone in
> the commuter lane. She pointed out she's 8 months pregnant, and if she
> can't have an abortion it must be because the "baby" counts.  The judges
> actually agreed with this one. :-)

Seems reasonable to me....

> [1] Special lane on the freeway reserved for cars with multiple people,
> which tends to go faster during rush-hour, because americans are too
> lazy to find neighbors going the same way at the same time to save gas.
> :-)

Yeah, we have those here as well, though you can buy a tag that lets you 
use it as a single person occupied vehicle.  They also give the tags to 
people who drive hybrids.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, we have those here as well,

That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a 
country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with 
people driving one to a car. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, we have those here as well,
> 
> That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a
> country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with
> people driving one to a car. :-)

Oh, right - long day here. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.

Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 8:26, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
>> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?
> 
> Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
> because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
> and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.
> 
> Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
> the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might 
argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while 
drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to 
think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take 
you home it might just work.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:

> while drinking no
> though was given on how to get home safe.

The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
to because it wouldn't be safe".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> while drinking no
>> though was given on how to get home safe.
> 
> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
> was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or 
something like that? You know there is a difference between somebody 
thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
> to because it wouldn't be safe".

I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not 
after.

(BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I 
have never drunk alcohol at all.)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> while drinking no
>>> though was given on how to get home safe.
>> 
>> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I
>> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done
>> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until
>> I was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.
> 
> I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or
> something like that? 

A couple of margaritas over the course of a large dinner.  For me that 
normally isn't "too much".  They mixed them stronger than I thought they 
would, and this became apparent when I got up to head back to the hotel.

> You know there is a difference between somebody
> thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

Uh, yeah, I do know that.  I don't drink excessively, but I do like a 
drink now and then.  And I tend to be *extremely* aware when I'm too 
inebriated to drive, because, as I said, I made the mistake of driving 
under the influence before and it scared the ever-living-shit out of me 
when I got up the next morning and wasn't sure how I'd gotten home.

Oh, and I've got a cousin who did time in prison for vehicular 
manslaughter as a result of DUI.  I'm *painfully* aware of the 
consequences of making a bad error in judgment about being too impaired  
to drive (for whatever reason, be it drink or sleep deprivation).

>> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely,
>> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not
>> going to because it wouldn't be safe".
> 
> I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not
> after.

Yeah, well, before I started on my two drinks at the restaurant I knew my 
tolerances and knew that I normally could handle two of that particular 
drink with a large meal and be able to operate the car fine.  After 
having the drinks and realizing that they mixed them about 4x as strong 
as any normal establishment would have done, I opted to not drive until I 
was safely able to.

The fact that I opted to sit in the car with the AC blasting was to keep 
me from falling asleep while the effects of the alcohol wore off.  I 
certainly didn't want to wake up the next morning still in the parking 
lot.

> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
> have never drunk alcohol at all.)

You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 

>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
>> have never drunk alcohol at all.)
> 
> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as
>>> I have never drunk alcohol at all.)
>> 
>> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)
> 
> I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

LOL, fair enough. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to
> think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take
> you home it might just work.

At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving 
Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our 
appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:56:04 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
>> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
>> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
>> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive
>> to think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to
>> take you home it might just work.
> 
> At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving
> Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our
> appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

I would think that the applicable law would be *if* the person were 
intoxicated *and* making a nuisance of themselves, "public intoxication" 
or something similar would already cover it.

But we seem to have a penchant in the US for legislating every little 
thing.  They've just passed a law here in Utah (effective May 1) that 
makes it illegal to text while driving.  But the cops can't tell the 
difference between texting (illegal) and dialing a phone (legal) or 
reading a map (legal) or changing the CD in the car stereo (also legal).

What they *should* do in my opinion is not legislate that *texting* is 
illegal, but legislate that *reckless driving* is illegal *regardless* of 
the reason.

What the local news stations are saying is that the purpose of the law is 
to increase the penalties if, say, someone causes an accident while 
texting - if they were texting (and that can be proven by subpoenaing 
records from the phone company), then the fines get steeper.

I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
picture.  And if you happen to be able to do these things responsibly and 
don't cause problems, then it's not a big deal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
> or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
> picture. 

I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other or 
sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.

Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does apparently 
nothing to reduce its prevalence.

And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise, this 
post would be illegible. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the
>> fines or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get
>> the picture.
> 
> I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other
> or sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.
> 
> Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does
> apparently nothing to reduce its prevalence.

Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
that we're talking about.

I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
"you can't read a book".  Eventually we get to the point where someone 
does something the legislators didn't think of that's worse than all of 
those put together and then we have to watch our legislators argue about 
whether or not we should have a law that makes it illegal to, I don't 
know, pet puppies while driving.

It's just a waste of taxpayer money and legislator time.

That's what my point was, really.

> And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise,
> this post would be illegible. :-)

LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
> teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
> automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
> that we're talking about.

Fair dinkum.

> I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
> to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
> "you can't read a book".

I think part of the problem is that people are really bad at judging 
low-risk activities.  People wouldn't know that talking on the phone is 
dangerous if you didn't get the word out, and legislators get the word out 
by passing laws.

Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while you 
drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...

I think that comes from when they pass laws saying "you can't talk on the 
phone", but people don't want to adjust their habits of doing work while 
driving.

> LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
> bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

It's funky. I have no problem at all, but even one or two mouthfuls of wine 
are enough to multiply my typos several-fold. Clearly you can be impaired 
and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin your driving 
depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour

Whiskey sour Euch!

The only thing you should put in whisky is more whisky ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:13:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception
>> of teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like
>> automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem
>> that we're talking about.
> 
> Fair dinkum.

Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

>> I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without
>> having to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on
>> a phone", "you can't read a book".
> 
> I think part of the problem is that people are really bad at judging
> low-risk activities.  People wouldn't know that talking on the phone is
> dangerous if you didn't get the word out, and legislators get the word
> out by passing laws.

Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk 
activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?

For example, I tend to talk on the phone when I'm driving to and from the 
office (which happens about once every 2 weeks these days).  It's 90 
minutes on the road round-trip and generally a pretty boring drive.

So I'll talk to my mom or my wife while I'm driving home.  They know I'm 
in the car and paying attention to the traffic around me, and if I don't 
respond immediately it's because I'm dealing with something.

But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...

Well, yeah, but at the same time, if I'm out driving (as I was today) and 
need to let my kid know we're on the way home, I'll ask my wife (who 
doesn't know how to use my phone to send text messages) to let me know 
when the light changes, and send him a message while I'm at the light.  
If I don't finish writing, fine, driving comes first.  But not while 
moving.

The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

> I think that comes from when they pass laws saying "you can't talk on
> the phone", but people don't want to adjust their habits of doing work
> while driving.

True.  Many people can multitask.  When someone schedules a meeting for 
7:30 AM, I'm not going to be in the office for it - not a chance that I'm 
up at 5:30 AM most mornings just so I can be to the office for an 7:30 AM 
meeting.  But if I have something I need to be to at 9, an hour meeting 
from 7:30 to 8:30 leaves me insufficient time to get there, so I'm very 
likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.

>> LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a
>> bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)
> 
> It's funky. I have no problem at all, but even one or two mouthfuls of
> wine are enough to multiply my typos several-fold. Clearly you can be
> impaired and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin
> your driving depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.

True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
habits.

I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

But I think a lot of people *use* drinking as an excuse to act stupid - 
even on that night when I didn't remember getting home, when I started to 
remember things the next day, I recalled that I still didn't do stupid 
things that were out of character for me (confirmed by the friends I was 
with).  And "stupid" is generally not in character for me.

Well, apart from "stupid" driving home - that was out of character, but I 
was still pretty young and didn't know my limits then as well as I do now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:13:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour
> 
> Whiskey sour Euch!
> 
> The only thing you should put in whisky is more whisky ;)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
> think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

Not *automobile* accidents, no.  Parking While Intoxicated causes accidents.

> But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
> drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
> phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

How do you know?

> The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
> way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

Then pull off to the side and do it. :-) Seems easy enough.

> likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.

At least here you get to have hands-free conversations. Not that it's all 
that much better.

>> impaired and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin
>> your driving depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.
> 
> True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
> habits.

That, and how much room you leave, and etc. I'm not a very good driver any 
more, since I no longer commute very far if at all, but I'm smart enough to 
know that and leave plenty of space around myself, for example.

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened 

I've never been that drunk. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 7:42, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
> return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
> know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

Long before you notice anything yourself your reaction time already goes 
up. You still feel the same and as long as nothing unexpected happens 
you are just as able to drive as always. One of the reasons why the 
alcohol limit is so low that most people think they could drink at least 
three more beer before they their driving is even minutely impaired is 
because of that. I.e. that people are unable to objectively look at 
themselves after consuming alcohol. Possibly because all the internal 
things you normally use to evaluate how well you are performing are 
slowed down by the same amount.

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Mar 2009 01:42:17 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
>think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)
>

It can if they are driving, I would think.

>
>Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk 
>activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?
>

Because everyone thinks that they are the exception.

>For example, I tend to talk on the phone when I'm driving to and from the 
>office (which happens about once every 2 weeks these days).  It's 90 
>minutes on the road round-trip and generally a pretty boring drive.
>
>So I'll talk to my mom or my wife while I'm driving home.  They know I'm 
>in the car and paying attention to the traffic around me, and if I don't 
>respond immediately it's because I'm dealing with something.
>
>But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
>drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
>phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

"tend to get off the phone" Does that mean that sometimes you don't?
>
>> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
>> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...
>

The same could be said for talking on the phone.

After bumping my motorbike into a wall when parking 40 years ago after drinking
2 pints of beer. (The limit was considered to be 3 pints.) I've never driven
after drinking and I like a drink. I also switch my phone off when driving, If
I've left it on by mistake and it rings I ignore it then pull over to check it
when I can.

Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?
> 

They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
track oslt involved.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:04:56 +0300, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?
>> 
>
>They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
>tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
>simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
>sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
>were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
>and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
>comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
>surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
>track oslt involved.
>
>-Aero

That's all very well when things go well but what happens when something
unexpected happens? Faster reflexes and better judgement?

OSLT > Or Something Like That ?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
> were driving better than without. 

So they lacked a control group, which would have told them how much of the 
improvement was repetition.  Bad scientist. No grant.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:07:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2009 01:42:17 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't
>>think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)
>>
> It can if they are driving, I would think.

Point.  But even sleeping separately while driving can cause automobile 
accidents. :-)

>>Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk
>>activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?
>>
> Because everyone thinks that they are the exception.

80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that 
statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on 
the roads.

> "tend to get off the phone" Does that mean that sometimes you don't?

Depends on the route I'm driving and how busy the road is.  I usually get 
to the city after rush hour is over, so the surface streets are not all 
that busy.  I also use a headset, both hands on the wheel at all times.

>>> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
>>> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...
>>
> The same could be said for talking on the phone.
> 
> After bumping my motorbike into a wall when parking 40 years ago after
> drinking 2 pints of beer. (The limit was considered to be 3 pints.) I've
> never driven after drinking and I like a drink. I also switch my phone
> off when driving, If I've left it on by mistake and it rings I ignore it
> then pull over to check it when I can.
> 
> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
> drinks"?

I have, and I think it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - 
and I generally will tell people who say that exactly that.

That said, a good friend of mine (who lost his license as a result of the 
incident) ended up with a shattered ankle after a head-on collision.  He 
was over the legal limit, and the other driver died in the accident.  But 
being the freak he is, it was 100% the other guy's fault - the other car 
was over the centre line on a long curve and there's no way my friend 
could've avoided hitting him.

The constables on the scene - as well as the dead driver's family - felt 
badly for him because his license was suspended.

The guess is that the main reason he didn't die in the accident was 
because he was relaxed as a result of the alcohol.  If he hadn't had a 
few pints ahead of time, his injuries would probably have been more 
severe or he might've died.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:04:56 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
>> drinks"?
>> 
>> 
> They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
> tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
> simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
> sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
> were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
> and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
> comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
> surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
> track oslt involved.
> 
> -Aero

Well, ISTR that most Finnish drivers go through what is described by some 
as the most intensive driving course in the world, and that the exams are 
actually difficult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message