how many actually take that choice. I've seen this argument before and it remains just as ridiculous as the first time I read it.
Assuming that the number is somewhere higher than zero, I don't understand how it is "ridiculous" to assert that this makes it less dangerous than a conversation with a non-present party. My anecdata thus far indicates that at least half of the people with whom I've driven are conscientious passengers, but of course, I'd love to see a scientific study into the matter.
Thats the problem, its NOT a proven hazard. Calm down and listen to what other people are saying, making decisions based solely on unproven fears is never a good idea. Slow down, listen, and realize that the data does not back up your statement, yet.
Sweet Jesus, have you even read the comments leading up to your post?
It may at some point, but its not a foregone conclusion that have a conversation in a car is a "proven hazard" or even if it is that the hazard is so great that it needs to be banned out right.
This discussion does not presume that having a conversation in the car is a proven hazard. It points to research, unlike your comment, that strongly suggests using a cell phone in a car is a distraction, regardless of the method of operating the phone, and then subsequent comments offer reasons why there is a difference between conversations with present and non-present participants, as well as making points as to why such an unnecessary distraction should be banned.
But hey, why engage in the discussion with by providing reference to substantive points, when you can just anonymously accuse the conversants of trafficking in "unproven fears," then completely ignore their arguments with and essentially repeat the points that prompted them to post in the first place?
Ah well. I'll just add this discussion to the list of reasons not to change my sig.
Remember, these are not "conspiracy theorists" talking -- this is an actual government report from 30 years ago documenting the behavior of the previous 40 years.
And look at what a widespread change in the corrupt culture of governance that report effected.
While the above might seem like cynicism, but the truth is that the FBI has been abusing its power for a long, long, time.
Exactly. I'm not being cynical. I'm just betting the odds.
The two couldn't be in conflict in the good old Paleolithic because if you were doing something where your life was at stake and that required total concentration everybody with you was in the same situation. You wouldn't be avoiding leopards while one guy yakked on about the good time he'd had last night. That's also why talking to a passenger in the car is different. If there's a red light coming up and you're not stopping for it, the passenger will either stop talking or say something about it (according to taste).
Seems like your question,
In which case, why aren't passengers made illegal, or required to stay silent[,]
was answered in some fashion that you totally ignored.
Here's another answer for your question: people and the courts generally recognize the necessity of being able to carry passengers in an automobile - indeed, many state laws like this encourage the practice. The "necessity" of being able to talk on a cell phone is far more questionable.
And, BTW, a driver may be charged with reckless driving if a cop observes them visibly paying more attention to one another than to the road. On the other hand, most cell phone conversations look the same, so the officer in question cannot be relied upon to make the distinction. Hence, it makes more sense to ban the totally unnecessary practice of yakking on phones while driving (rather than, say, pulling the fuck into a parking lot like a mature, reasoning adult to converse) than to allow a proven hazard to exist on public roads.
I for one pull over when I use my cell phone, and have no problem delegating to my spouse or teenagers if they are riding with me.
Same here. It's amazing how many people consider talking on the phone to be as great a necessity as concentrating on the operation of driving.
And yes, I understand that some people receive urgent phone calls while driving. That's nice, but too small a factor to explain the prevalence of this behavior. I've been in a car with someone who suffers from the following laughable bit of irrationality, and considering the staggering human capacity for denial and delusion, I assume this is not rare by any means:
"Oh, it's my mother. Well, it might be really important, she might need a ride or be in the hospital, so I better get it. Hi mom!" (Twenty minutes of drivel ensues.)
Get rid of the DUI laws, the cell-phone laws, etc, and just ban "dangerous driving".
Why, because leaving the nature of charges up to the discretion of individual law enforcement officers has worked so well in the past?
Thanks, but no thanks. If I'm going to be charged with a crime for which my license could potentially be suspended, or for which I might well go to jail, I demand that the state be able to precisely determine the nature of my violation.
The principal findings for this experiment are that: (a) SPs [study participants] that engaged in cell phone conversations missed twice as many simulated traffic signals as when they were not talking on the cell phone, (b) SPs took longer to react to those signals that they did detect, and (c) these deficits were equivalent for both hand-held and hands-free cell phone users.
Its pretty telling and sad when the company responsible for root-kits has a higher regard among us then the DoJ.
True. I don't buy CDs, though, and all I know is that my Sony has, for years, provided clean, crisp images of such things as the incompetent lackey in charge of the DoJ, lying desperately in order to cover his political ass. In fact, when I first purchased the Sony, it provided great imagery of his predecessor explaining the need to ruthlessly prosecute pornographers and head shops.
[T]he omission of Vista support for Turbo Memory arose to avoid further delay of the OS released. Vista currently cannot recognize which kinds of processes and files need to be preloaded into Turbo Memory, [Sony's David] Spaeth said.
vs. Microsoft's vague assurances:
"Windows Vista supports Intel's Turbo Memory, and Microsoft and Intel have worked together to ensure that Turbo Memory works with Windows Vista technologies. There are no issues which we are aware of that would prevent [manufacturers] from adopting Turbo Memory for great performance results with Windows Vista."
Guess who seems more confident in their assertion?
Hilarious that two of us Southern expats in the North posted within minutes of each other. I guess I'm not the only one who gets sick of assumptions that everyone who's "down on Dixie" is just being a bigot.
This myth of the South as a welcoming heartland of wholesome values is a tired bit of irresponsible fluffery whose time is way past due.
Having grown, lived, and worked in many parts of the South (MD, AL, MS, GA, FL) before moving to New England in my later twenties, I can completely understand the GP's unwillingness. Unless one is predisposed to miserable summer heat, far poorer working conditions, and pervasive bigotry that, while probably no greater in quantity than in much of rural New England, is certainly more confrontational and institutionalized, there is little to recommend leaving New England for the South.
I do recommend it to New England conservatives of my acquaintance, though. What better place to experience the actual results of "limited government," "minimal interference" in labor and health regulation, and gutted systems of public education than dear ol' Dixie?
Yes. The point is to apply historical understanding of Scripture to determine which volumes most likely reflect the accounts of eyewitnesses to Jesus' career, which volumes reflect the preserved writings of the worldly administrators to a Middle Eastern kingdom, or which volumes reflect the worldly politics and tensions in the early church.
I've never understood the contradictions that allow the Christian to give equal weight to the teachings of the one believed to be the son of the Deity, and to the cultural legacy of an era filled with crude ignorance and vile ethnic hatreds.
Are you -- along with Mr. Frank -- telling me, that "millions" of natively born and raised Americans have somebody but themselves (and, maybe, their own parents) to blame for not being able to afford anything they darn please by adulthood?
Many of them, yes. Casting everyone's economic situation as the result of their own free will is just moralistic fluffing for the successful. Really, just because someone's parents, neighbors, or history is/are fucked up is no reason to deny that person access to medical care, for example.
Don't get me wrong; I know that plenty of the millions of Americans without access to health care are in this situation because of the costs of maintaining things like cell phones and cable TV. I'm just not so inexperienced with poverty to believe that this is a majority, nor so given to sweeping generalizations as to make moral pronouncements of, essentially, "they have it coming" about millions of other people.
If he grew the understanding, that I, unlike millions of Americans, presently have the option of saving for retirement, finding job, choosing health-care options, etcetera
Oh, and by the way, don't try pointing out statements by Paul that have to be teased through the interpretive comb to get results. I mean, really, who's missing the point badly enough to presume that anyone other than God in the person of Jesus can declare something a sin, except those who somehow venerate the a book, the product of the Nicene Council's editorial processes which elevate the writings of a man alongside those supposedly spoken by God?
Question: Is it not then, the governmetn's responsibility to (can't totally prevent) minimize that? If "Yes" and you still have you opinion, then what SHOULD be done?
Given your premises, perhaps one might actually target gambling addicts, rather than driving the legitimate hobby of at least thousands onto the black market? Just a thought.
I mean, I know one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but breaking a few cases is just ridiculous.
The Reverend Lovejoys of the world had their year or two of cleanliness on this one, and it's time to start finally making, for once, rational laws about things that the government should be focused on.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that the number is somewhere higher than zero, I don't understand how it is "ridiculous" to assert that this makes it less dangerous than a conversation with a non-present party. My anecdata thus far indicates that at least half of the people with whom I've driven are conscientious passengers, but of course, I'd love to see a scientific study into the matter.
Sweet Jesus, have you even read the comments leading up to your post?
This discussion does not presume that having a conversation in the car is a proven hazard. It points to research, unlike your comment, that strongly suggests using a cell phone in a car is a distraction, regardless of the method of operating the phone, and then subsequent comments offer reasons why there is a difference between conversations with present and non-present participants, as well as making points as to why such an unnecessary distraction should be banned.
But hey, why engage in the discussion with by providing reference to substantive points, when you can just anonymously accuse the conversants of trafficking in "unproven fears," then completely ignore their arguments with and essentially repeat the points that prompted them to post in the first place?
Ah well. I'll just add this discussion to the list of reasons not to change my sig.
Sorry, but this has already been hashed out.
Short answer: Because this -
- is wrong.Exactly. I'm not being cynical. I'm just betting the odds.
Seriously, thank you for expressing that more coherently than I would have on this lazy beer-drinking Saturday afternoon.
From the post to which you're responding:
Seems like your question,
was answered in some fashion that you totally ignored.
Here's another answer for your question: people and the courts generally recognize the necessity of being able to carry passengers in an automobile - indeed, many state laws like this encourage the practice. The "necessity" of being able to talk on a cell phone is far more questionable.
And, BTW, a driver may be charged with reckless driving if a cop observes them visibly paying more attention to one another than to the road. On the other hand, most cell phone conversations look the same, so the officer in question cannot be relied upon to make the distinction. Hence, it makes more sense to ban the totally unnecessary practice of yakking on phones while driving (rather than, say, pulling the fuck into a parking lot like a mature, reasoning adult to converse) than to allow a proven hazard to exist on public roads.
I'm sure this'll get results. The current executive branch has been pretty respectful of legislative and judicial checks on its power thus far.
And while I'm at it, I'd really like a pony.
Same here. It's amazing how many people consider talking on the phone to be as great a necessity as concentrating on the operation of driving.
And yes, I understand that some people receive urgent phone calls while driving. That's nice, but too small a factor to explain the prevalence of this behavior. I've been in a car with someone who suffers from the following laughable bit of irrationality, and considering the staggering human capacity for denial and delusion, I assume this is not rare by any means:
"Oh, it's my mother. Well, it might be really important, she might need a ride or be in the hospital, so I better get it. Hi mom!" (Twenty minutes of drivel ensues.)
Why, because leaving the nature of charges up to the discretion of individual law enforcement officers has worked so well in the past?
Thanks, but no thanks. If I'm going to be charged with a crime for which my license could potentially be suspended, or for which I might well go to jail, I demand that the state be able to precisely determine the nature of my violation.
I'll start.
From the study:
Probably.
True. I don't buy CDs, though, and all I know is that my Sony has, for years, provided clean, crisp images of such things as the incompetent lackey in charge of the DoJ, lying desperately in order to cover his political ass. In fact, when I first purchased the Sony, it provided great imagery of his predecessor explaining the need to ruthlessly prosecute pornographers and head shops.
vs. Microsoft's vague assurances:
Guess who seems more confident in their assertion?
Other than positive regard by a larger number of the American people, I have no idea.
Hilarious that two of us Southern expats in the North posted within minutes of each other. I guess I'm not the only one who gets sick of assumptions that everyone who's "down on Dixie" is just being a bigot.
This myth of the South as a welcoming heartland of wholesome values is a tired bit of irresponsible fluffery whose time is way past due.
Having grown, lived, and worked in many parts of the South (MD, AL, MS, GA, FL) before moving to New England in my later twenties, I can completely understand the GP's unwillingness. Unless one is predisposed to miserable summer heat, far poorer working conditions, and pervasive bigotry that, while probably no greater in quantity than in much of rural New England, is certainly more confrontational and institutionalized, there is little to recommend leaving New England for the South.
I do recommend it to New England conservatives of my acquaintance, though. What better place to experience the actual results of "limited government," "minimal interference" in labor and health regulation, and gutted systems of public education than dear ol' Dixie?
Yes. The point is to apply historical understanding of Scripture to determine which volumes most likely reflect the accounts of eyewitnesses to Jesus' career, which volumes reflect the preserved writings of the worldly administrators to a Middle Eastern kingdom, or which volumes reflect the worldly politics and tensions in the early church.
I've never understood the contradictions that allow the Christian to give equal weight to the teachings of the one believed to be the son of the Deity, and to the cultural legacy of an era filled with crude ignorance and vile ethnic hatreds.
Many of them, yes. Casting everyone's economic situation as the result of their own free will is just moralistic fluffing for the successful. Really, just because someone's parents, neighbors, or history is/are fucked up is no reason to deny that person access to medical care, for example.
Don't get me wrong; I know that plenty of the millions of Americans without access to health care are in this situation because of the costs of maintaining things like cell phones and cable TV. I'm just not so inexperienced with poverty to believe that this is a majority, nor so given to sweeping generalizations as to make moral pronouncements of, essentially, "they have it coming" about millions of other people.
Yeah, but ever since they took away the numbers, where's the gratification?
There, fixed. No charge. Sorry for the PDF.
Oh, and by the way, don't try pointing out statements by Paul that have to be teased through the interpretive comb to get results. I mean, really, who's missing the point badly enough to presume that anyone other than God in the person of Jesus can declare something a sin, except those who somehow venerate the a book, the product of the Nicene Council's editorial processes which elevate the writings of a man alongside those supposedly spoken by God?
I have, you presumptuous, anonymous ass. Now, please direct me to the passage in the New Testament that declares gambling a sin.
Given your premises, perhaps one might actually target gambling addicts, rather than driving the legitimate hobby of at least thousands onto the black market? Just a thought.
I mean, I know one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but breaking a few cases is just ridiculous.
Fixed. No charge.