Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 17:09 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:4B9AB8BF.4090504(a)msu.edu... >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:4u-dnWU6GushKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_ooAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:hnebdt$418$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>>> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this >>>>>>>> obvious fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>>>>>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people >>>>>>> to make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people >>>>>>> get over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then >>>>>>> annual drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to safely >>>>>>> drive decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >>>>>> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment >>>>>> far earlier than 75. >>>>>> >>>>>> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, >>>>>> why wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at 55. >>>>>> Just as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder after >>>>>> allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a similar >>>>>> decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we required testing after reaching >>>>>> a reasonable age. >>>>>> >>>>> Even earlier testing won't help if the testing continues to be too >>>>> easy. Driving tests should be designed to force failure. Those who fail >>>>> will tell others about the test, and that might dissuade the timid from >>>>> even trying. >>>> Or, simulations and training can be used to improve the driving skills >>>> of all people who drive. Even me. >>> >>> As I mentioned in another message, some people are not good with spatial >>> relationships. This is something that cannot be trained into people. They >>> will never be good drivers. >> Some people. Not all. You're also making an assumption that people who are >> not good with spacial relationships can't learn to drive better using >> other types of skills. >> >> Jeff > > > The ability to quickly manage spatial relationships is the single most > important skill in driving. There is no other skill which will help people > drive better. If you disagree, describe these "other types of skills". Show us the research to back your claim.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:10 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hnedu8$mo4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:58:39 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>> This is rich, coming from you. When you get some real-world experience, >>> feel free to post again. Until then, Bye Now! >> >> >> I trust carefully crafted research far more than a guy looking out his >> window. > > Right. What's the difference? Observation is observation. I drive 250-500 > miles a week. I don't have a white coat and a clipboard. I have white > knuckles from grasping the wheel avoiding people who should't even have a > license for an ox cart. > > I think my real-world observations are just as valid. > > I'll tell you what. My cousin works for the NYT. I'll have her publish a > column I'll write and then you can say it's Gospel. Actually, the first story I heard about the inarguably valid research was on TV about 5 years ago. It was on Fox News.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:14 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:h76dnad9n8s0JgfWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:4B9AB8BF.4090504(a)msu.edu... >>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:4u-dnWU6GushKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_ooAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:hnebdt$418$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>>>> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this >>>>>>>>> obvious fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>>>>>>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people >>>>>>>> to make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people >>>>>>>> get over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then >>>>>>>> annual drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to >>>>>>>> safely drive decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >>>>>>> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment >>>>>>> far earlier than 75. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, >>>>>>> why wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at >>>>>>> 55. Just as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder >>>>>>> after allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a >>>>>>> similar decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we required testing >>>>>>> after reaching a reasonable age. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Even earlier testing won't help if the testing continues to be too >>>>>> easy. Driving tests should be designed to force failure. Those who >>>>>> fail will tell others about the test, and that might dissuade the >>>>>> timid from even trying. >>>>> Or, simulations and training can be used to improve the driving skills >>>>> of all people who drive. Even me. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in another message, some people are not good with >>>> spatial relationships. This is something that cannot be trained into >>>> people. They will never be good drivers. >>> Some people. Not all. You're also making an assumption that people who >>> are not good with spacial relationships can't learn to drive better >>> using other types of skills. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> >> The ability to quickly manage spatial relationships is the single most >> important skill in driving. There is no other skill which will help >> people drive better. If you disagree, describe these "other types of >> skills". > > Show us the research to back your claim. I'll do that as soon as you tell me which other skills you were referring to. I'm surprised you even mentioned such a thing. Didn't you once claim to be a doctor?
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 17:31 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:h76dnad9n8s0JgfWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:4B9AB8BF.4090504(a)msu.edu... >>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>>> news:4u-dnWU6GushKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_ooAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:hnebdt$418$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>>>>> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this >>>>>>>>>> obvious fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>>>>>>>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people >>>>>>>>> to make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people >>>>>>>>> get over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then >>>>>>>>> annual drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to >>>>>>>>> safely drive decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >>>>>>>> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment >>>>>>>> far earlier than 75. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, >>>>>>>> why wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at >>>>>>>> 55. Just as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder >>>>>>>> after allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a >>>>>>>> similar decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we required testing >>>>>>>> after reaching a reasonable age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even earlier testing won't help if the testing continues to be too >>>>>>> easy. Driving tests should be designed to force failure. Those who >>>>>>> fail will tell others about the test, and that might dissuade the >>>>>>> timid from even trying. >>>>>> Or, simulations and training can be used to improve the driving skills >>>>>> of all people who drive. Even me. >>>>> As I mentioned in another message, some people are not good with >>>>> spatial relationships. This is something that cannot be trained into >>>>> people. They will never be good drivers. >>>> Some people. Not all. You're also making an assumption that people who >>>> are not good with spacial relationships can't learn to drive better >>>> using other types of skills. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> The ability to quickly manage spatial relationships is the single most >>> important skill in driving. There is no other skill which will help >>> people drive better. If you disagree, describe these "other types of >>> skills". >> Show us the research to back your claim. > > > I'll do that as soon as you tell me which other skills you were referring > to. I'm surprised you even mentioned such a thing. Didn't you once claim to > be a doctor? In other words, you won't back your claims.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:34
"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:OOCdnVz-RtU0XQfWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:h76dnad9n8s0JgfWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:4B9AB8BF.4090504(a)msu.edu... >>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4u-dnWU6GushKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_ooAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:hnebdt$418$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>>>>>> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this >>>>>>>>>>> obvious fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>>>>>>>>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of >>>>>>>>>> people to make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. >>>>>>>>>> Once people get over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should >>>>>>>>>> biannual, then annual drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The >>>>>>>>>> ability to safely drive decreases rapidly, usually beginning >>>>>>>>>> around 75. >>>>>>>>> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver >>>>>>>>> impairment far earlier than 75. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In >>>>>>>>> fact, why wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel >>>>>>>>> test at 55. Just as every state experiences a decrease in deaths >>>>>>>>> from murder after allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we >>>>>>>>> would see a similar decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we >>>>>>>>> required testing after reaching a reasonable age. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even earlier testing won't help if the testing continues to be too >>>>>>>> easy. Driving tests should be designed to force failure. Those who >>>>>>>> fail will tell others about the test, and that might dissuade the >>>>>>>> timid from even trying. >>>>>>> Or, simulations and training can be used to improve the driving >>>>>>> skills of all people who drive. Even me. >>>>>> As I mentioned in another message, some people are not good with >>>>>> spatial relationships. This is something that cannot be trained into >>>>>> people. They will never be good drivers. >>>>> Some people. Not all. You're also making an assumption that people who >>>>> are not good with spacial relationships can't learn to drive better >>>>> using other types of skills. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> The ability to quickly manage spatial relationships is the single most >>>> important skill in driving. There is no other skill which will help >>>> people drive better. If you disagree, describe these "other types of >>>> skills". >>> Show us the research to back your claim. >> >> >> I'll do that as soon as you tell me which other skills you were referring >> to. I'm surprised you even mentioned such a thing. Didn't you once claim >> to be a doctor? > > In other words, you won't back your claims. I promise I'll back my claims. But not until you briefly list the other skills you mentioned earlier. |