 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <bdc### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> All in all, it's not how I would have preferred to start my Monday.
Now I understand why many people hate Mondays...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My mum snapped the brake lever off one time... She we at the front of
>> a line of traffic, and when the lights turned green, the ripped the
>> brake lever off. The bus in front started honking at her, until she
>> got out of the *cough* Ford Anglia still holding the brake lever in
>> her hand.
>
> Wow, you should compile a list of whacky things you mom has done
> accidentally, :) This, and nailing your hand to a board should be at the
> top of the list.
Correction: It was actually the gear stick.
And it was a Ford Cortina.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:11:19 -0400, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:40:51 -0400, Chambers wrote:
>>
>> > In all honesty, it hurt, but I'm glad that nothing worse happened.
>>
>> Same here. Drivers on the roads act stupidly a lot - it sounds like
>> you're a sensible rider, too. There are lots of cyclists here in Salt
>> Lake City that seem to think they don't have to obey the rules of the
>> road - I've seen them blow stop signs/lights, ride on the wrong side of
>> the road (or the sidewalks, which is against the law here I
>> understand).
>
> In all honesty, I know that I do a lot of stupid things when walking or
> riding. Even so, I try not to do them in a stupid way. For instance, I
> often jaywalk instead of heading for the nearest crosswalk... but I'm
> always careful about checking for traffic before I do so. Things like
> that.
>
> With all that, however, I think that since people in cars are capable of
> causing so much more damage, then it's up to drivers to take extra
> caution. Traffic in my direction had a green light, and her car was
> stopped... so naturally, I assumed it would be safe to cross in front of
> her. Boy, was I wrong.
It's unfortunate that so many drivers drive with their attention
elsewhere. In a way, I understand why there are laws in some locales
(including here in Utah now) prohibiting texting while driving, talking
on a cell phone while driving, etc. It's because idiots don't pay
attention to driving. I sometimes talk on my phone while driving, or
very very occasionally send my stepson a quick text while in the driver's
seat (at a stoplight, for example, or on a road with no traffic or risk
of accident), but I always remember that my first priority is to ensuring
that the operation of a ton of metal and plastic is done safely. First
priority of my focus is on what's going on around me - and I'm extra
careful to not get distracted by a conversation if I'm moving. Right
hand lane on the freeway (and not in rush hour traffic) in general.
I see that as acting responsibly while driving. Only ever been in two
minor accidents, and only with other cars - and ironically not on the
phone. Distracted by a police car once, and the second time it was the
other driver's fault for not paying attention (but somehow I ended up the
'at fault' driver, go figure).
>> ISTR there was a recent story in the local paper about someone on a
>> bike who ran into a *parked* car and the owner of the car was found to
>> be at fault, even though the car was properly parked.
>
> Now THAT is crazy.
Yeah, it certainly is....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In a way, I understand why there are laws in some locales
> (including here in Utah now) prohibiting texting while driving, talking
> on a cell phone while driving, etc.
I always thought those laws were unnecessary and redundent, but IANAL.
If someone got in a wreck because they were texting, why can't they just be
charged with reckless driving? Why do we need a separate law to say that not
paying attention is reckless?
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:42 -0400, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In a way, I understand why there are laws in some locales (including
>> here in Utah now) prohibiting texting while driving, talking on a cell
>> phone while driving, etc.
>
> I always thought those laws were unnecessary and redundent, but IANAL.
IANAL either, but I agree. Though I understand that the reason isn't so
much because you're going to get pulled over for it, but if you're in an
accident and they find out that you were texting at the time of the
accident, they can increase the fine and the severity of the offense
you're charged with.
> If someone got in a wreck because they were texting, why can't they just
> be charged with reckless driving? Why do we need a separate law to say
> that not paying attention is reckless?
Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is illegal",
"shaving is illegal", etc. A case of creating laws that are too specific
rather than something that's a bit more generic. Of course, lawyers
don't like "generic" because it lacks specificity.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> accident, they can increase the fine and the severity of the offense
> you're charged with.
That, and convincing people who don't think they're more dangerous because
they're doing it that they really are. Same as drunk driving laws - trying
to get people to plan for having a designated driver, rather than just
saying "Oh, I drive just as well after a couple beers."
> Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
> while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is illegal",
Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone than
eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they start texting.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
> > while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is illegal",
>
> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone than
> eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they start texting.
But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I knew that
was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't know it was
dangerous?"
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I knew that
> was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't know it was
> dangerous?"
You can't legislate away stupidity. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:36:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> accident, they can increase the fine and the severity of the offense
>> you're charged with.
>
> That, and convincing people who don't think they're more dangerous
> because they're doing it that they really are. Same as drunk driving
> laws - trying to get people to plan for having a designated driver,
> rather than just saying "Oh, I drive just as well after a couple beers."
Well, I've not been convinced that I'm any more dangerous talking on the
phone while driving than not. But I also use a headset, shift over to
the right hand lane, and slow down. I know many people don't, but
continue to drive as aggressively (if not more so) when on the phone -
they get into an intense discussion and that intensity works into their
driving style as well.
That *is* more dangerous, I agree. But at the same time, the twits who
weave in and out of heavy traffic like they're in a F1 race are more
dangerous than anything on the road.
What needs to happen is that first there needs to be more enforcement
(but that costs and budgets are being cut or kept level) for just plain
old reckless driving. If you happen to be driving recklessly and doing
something else at the same time, that's a problem as well.
But if you're not posing a danger to yourself or others on the road by
texting/talking/eating/whatever while driving, the cops shouldn't waste
their time citing you (and they won't - kinda like the original seat belt
laws, they couldn't pull you over for a seat belt violation, but they
could add that if they stopped you and you weren't wearing one).
>> Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
>> while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is
>> illegal",
>
> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone
> than eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they
> start texting.
You haven't seen Utah drivers. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:12:47 -0400, Chambers wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
>> > while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is
>> > illegal",
>>
>> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone
>> than eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they
>> start texting.
>
> But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I
> knew that was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't
> know it was dangerous?"
Exactly. Laws like the no-texting law in Utah tend to (a) give people an
excuse for doing something that isn't *explicity* stated as illegal, and
(b) keep people from applying simple common sense to everyday
situations. But at least here in the US, our society is going towards
"set rules that require nobody to think" - like Zero Tolerance policies
in schools and businesses.
On that topic, I'm glad the US Supreme Court ruled on the school strip
search the way they did. Finally, some common sense.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
