got hit by a car today

[blurr]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Um, time to do a little "rewiring" there yourself, sport -- maybe learning to read, and to use rudimentary logic would help. Learning stuff is not in any way the same as "rewiring" your brain to actually function differently.

And I would bet you real money that I know a shitload more about neurobiology than you do. $500, cash, for both of us take exams on the subject and see who does better. "Actual education", my hairy ass. Put up or shut up.

Pay up I just got done stuffing ya
as usual.

Irrelevant (as usual). Learning stuff is not in any way the same as "rewiring" your brain to actually function differently. Rossi and Einstein both have (had) the same basic brain structure, lobes and loci and functions as you and I. And both of them would drive worse while on the phone than while paying proper attention, just like you and I.

Fucking hell you are a dense fuck, go up and reread what I posted will ya? Gets tiresome talking to a supposed educated person that is so goddamn stupid.

None of your referenced sites (again as usual) contained enough actual data to support your claimed points or to refute mine. To take just one, it listed six distractions that were measured, and then in the very next paragraph noted that cellphones were a major source but that they weren't on the list because they don't measure that. Which makes your cited site COMPLETELY USELESS for refuting any of my points. Knuckle head.

Again, with a little logic added to what I posted up you would know that DISTRACTED driving, not just cell phones are a problem, but since you are a whiney little quacker and have to "win" a conversation you refuse to acknowledge that

Already explained, in REALLY simple terms, what I was talking about on this one. Fail.

You mentally retarded or something?

Completely irrelevant, as usual (surprise!).

I don't need anything "original" when I have the facts, the logic, and a shitload of valid points you have repeatedly failed to refute.

This goes back to the point I already made:That IS the "extreme injury or extraordinary circumstances" I mentioned; these are people who have disabilities with the normal functioning of their brains, and who are spending immense effort to work around that. Which makes this reference (surprise!) completely irrelevant to the subject of the workings of normal brains, of normal drivers, endangering the rest of us by driving with serious distractions.

blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, yea yea yea, cept I posted up vid after vid that shows where we are able to learn to drive with many distractions, but since you are to much of a dumb ass to learn anything then that is beyond you now isnt it?

Your references here are like trying to claim that Olympic athletes have different muscles that attach in different places and fundamentally work differently from the rest of us, and then “proving” it with some articles about how amputees and dystrophics have to learn to use their muscles differently to get by, and then somehow claiming that those two things should determine how we design exercise programs for normal people.

No my references refute your claim so your being a pissy little cunt as usual.

You really should stop and try to think before posting sometimes. This made no sense whatsoever, and has no relationship to reality.

Um, time to do a little "rewiring" there yourself, sport -- maybe learning to read, and to use rudimentary logic would help.

That isn’t what I said. I said that lack of skills isn’t the main root of the problem, and therefore teaching more skills isn’t the main solution to the problem. The problem is people intentionally behaving in destructive, dangerous, negligent ways. No one is on the phone while driving by accident; each one has *chosen* to do that. It is perfectly reasonable and right that each of them then be held responsible for making such an irresponsible choice that endangers other people. Indeed, at its most basic, that’s what the law is FOR – to punish those who harm or endanger others through their bad choices.

I think educating people to pay attention better would be good. I think educating people about the dangers of distractions would be good, despite the clear example right fucking here of how futile that is. But the point is that you have to stop those that are hurting others. You teach gun safety, but you ALSO make it illegal to use them unsafely and punish people who do use them unsafely and thereby harm or endanger other people.

And since you want (apparently) to link threads and subjects up – for someone who’s awfully concerned about killing a small number of murderers, including any non-murderers that may have gotten convicted along with them, just to prevent the small number of possible crimes that could be committed if one of them escaped, you’re awfully UNconcerned about the *thousands* of people that get killed “accidentally” through the dangerous negligence of drivers on phones. Again, you’re just not thinking clearly or making rational sense.
=====
And you're STILL not a "special snowflake" immune to the laws of biology and physics.

Step in the ring with me and I will show you what a special snowflake I am, 500.00, up for it champ? Oh wait, that wouldnt be fair as you do not have the same ability as I do. ta da, big fucking surprise.

And you STILL don't have the right to wilfully and callously endanger other people. Period.

PhilB

I already proved over and over again where we willfully endanger others in the real world, nobody makes you get on the road phil, so stay home, or shut the fuck up.

Lets face it phil, you dont have the mental capacity to even remotely challenge me on this or any other subject, maybe go back to school and get a little more edmunucated will ya?

[bzb]

I see things haven't changed much here. That's the great thing about you guys. I can leave for months and come back and it's like I never left!

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by blurr

Pay up I just got done stuffing ya
as usual.

Fucking hell you are a dense fuck, go up and reread what I posted will ya? Gets tiresome talking to a supposed educated person that is so goddamn stupid.

Again, with a little logic added to what I posted up you would know that DISTRACTED driving, not just cell phones are a problem, but since you are a whiney little quacker and have to "win" a conversation you refuse to acknowledge that

You mentally retarded or something?

blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, yea yea yea, cept I posted up vid after vid that shows where we are able to learn to drive with many distractions, but since you are to much of a dumb ass to learn anything then that is beyond you now isnt it?

No my references refute your claim so your being a pissy little cunt as usual.
Step in the ring with me and I will show you what a special snowflake I am, 500.00, up for it champ? Oh wait, that wouldnt be fair as you do not have the same ability as I do. ta da, big fucking surprise.

I already proved over and over again where we willfully endanger others in the real world, nobody makes you get on the road phil, so stay home, or shut the fuck up.

Lets face it phil, you dont have the mental capacity to even remotely challenge me on this or any other subject, maybe go back to school and get a little more edmunucated will ya?

So now you're down to nothing more than insults and threats of violence, and you tell me I "don't have the mental capacity". Shows the level at which you actually operate.

Fail.

PhilB

[acalliste]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Again, the problem isn't really basic competence nearly as much as it is attention. Most people really are capable of driving decently if they are paying attention to doing that. Most of the problems are not due to people who are completely incapable; it's due to people doing other things and not concentrating on their driving. So stricter licensing wouldn't be "fixing it right"; it wouldn't even address the real problem. Conversely, dealing with the distractions IS the real solution, not the "band-aid".

Testing for a higher level of skill won't fix the problem, if they're not even bothering to use the skills they have now. They need to be persuaded, forcibly if need be, to pay attention, so they don't kill someone. And, being that cellphones (a) have become a common problem, and are only becoming moreso, and (b) that they have been demonstrated factually to be worse than other distractions in BOTH duration and intensity, it makes sense to hit that one.

Again, driving while phoning has been shown to be as bad as driving at the legal limit of drunk. Unless you would advocate repealing drunk driving laws as unnecessary, ineffective, and already covered by other laws, you are being inconsistent at the very least. Are you in favor of repealing drunk driving laws? Or are you being inconsistent?

PhilB

Setting aside the idea that speaking while driving is the same as drinking 10 tequila shots and driving, when you are driving sober you have the option of answering the phone or not. Making a call or not. Choosing to keep your primary focus on the road while talking or listening, and hanging up if needed. When you are drunk, you can't turn it off. You are drunk until it wears off.

So no, I don't think we should repeal DUI laws.

Going back to whether speaking = being drunk, I don't really buy it. If that were true we would see a lot more crashes. I can see 10 people noticeably talking on their cell phones on my way to or from work on an average day, but I don't see them weaving in their lanes, running over curbs or stopping in the road for no reason the way drunk drivers do. The most I see is them being unable to maneuver a turn with one hand on the wheel because they have their phone in the other hand. Or they can't be bothered to check their blind spots because that would require removing their phones from their heads.





A few years ago, a woman was walking her young daughter home from school and pushing her baby in a stroller. A woman in an SUV ran the light at the crossing where the family was walking, hitting them and killing both children.

The driver told police she was on the phone and didn't notice the red light. However after months of investigation and looking through phone records, they couldn't find any evidence she was on the phone. She finally admitted that she was just pissed that the light had turned red, didn't want to be slowed down by it and blew the light on purpose.

I think if people had to actually prove they could operate a vehicle safely, and make it harder to get a license, they would more conscientious drivers.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by acalliste

Setting aside the idea that speaking while driving is the same as drinking 10 tequila shots and driving, when you are driving sober you have the option of answering the phone or not. Making a call or not. Choosing to keep your primary focus on the road while talking or listening, and hanging up if needed. When you are drunk, you can't turn it off. You are drunk until it wears off.

So no, I don't think we should repeal DUI laws.

First, please read what I actually write; it reduces the risk of responding inappropriately to things I didn't say. I have been *very* careful each time to write that driving while phoning is about equivalent to driving at the legal limit of drunk -- about 0.08 to 0.10 %BAC, about 4 times the accident/death risks. Very few people will be anywhere near that limit with "10 tequila shots"; that will put anyone *way* over that limit, unless those are spread over 6 hours or so.

Second, yes it's a choice whether to answer the phone or not. Just like it's a choice to get behind the wheel drunk or not. In both cases that choice should be "not". How hard is this to grasp?

Originally Posted by acalliste

Going back to whether speaking = being drunk, I don't really buy it. If that were true we would see a lot more crashes. I can see 10 people noticeably talking on their cell phones on my way to or from work on an average day, but I don't see them weaving in their lanes, running over curbs or stopping in the road for no reason the way drunk drivers do. The most I see is them being unable to maneuver a turn with one hand on the wheel because they have their phone in the other hand. Or they can't be bothered to check their blind spots because that would require removing their phones from their heads.

What I wrote above indeed addresses this item as well. Being on the phone isn't equivalent to being completely falling-down blotto. It's about equivalent to being at the current legal limit of drunk. At which level, most drunks make it home safely as well, but not all -- four times as many don't compared to sober drivers.

So no, driving while phoning isn't a guarantee of an accident, and I never said it was. Driving drunk isn't a guarantee of an accident either. But both are a guarantee of increased risk, at a level that causes large numbers of unnecessary deaths in this country every year. Which is worth preventing to the extent that it is possible.

Originally Posted by acalliste

... I think if people had to actually prove they could operate a vehicle safely, and make it harder to get a license, they would more conscientious drivers.

This may or may not be true. Since the main problem now is already a lack of conscientiousness rather than a lack of skill, I don't see any evidence that this is true. The problem is NOT that it's too easy to get a license; the problem is that people aren't paying damn attention. Therefore making the license more difficult doesn't address the real problem. Measures to promote attention and punish inattention do. And it appears, if this thread makes nothing else clear, that there are those who will insist that they are "different", somehow exempt from the problem, no matter how much information, evidence, and education is applied to them, and thus will apparently only respond to punishment.

And of course, no matter how hard it is to get a license, those people STILL won't be "special snowflakes" immune to the laws of biology and physics.

And they STILL won't have the right to wilfully and callously endanger other people. Period.

PhilB

[blurr]

So you still have not answered why you support the creation of new laws, when basic ones are already unenforced.

You have also not explained why you are all for more intrusion into peoples lives except that you are scared.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by blurr

So you still have not answered why you support the creation of new laws, when basic ones are already unenforced.

You have also not explained why you are all for more intrusion into peoples lives except that you are scared.

Yes, I have.

PhilB