Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Mar 2010 17:46 On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:10:19 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "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. My observations of drivers who shouldn't even be let anywhere near a car are valid, too.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Mar 2010 17:48 On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:34:35 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "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@göv.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. Oh, the merry go round broke down and it made a terrible sound the lights went low and we said "OH!" and the merry go round went oomp-pa-ooomp-pa-ooomm-pa-pa
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:52 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hneg88$69e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:10:19 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:hnedu8$mo4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:58:39 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>>> This is rich, coming from you. When you get some real-world >>>>> experience, feel free to post again. Until then, Bye Now! >>>> >>>> >>>> I trust carefully crafted research far more than a guy looking out his >>>> window. >>> >>> Right. What's the difference? Observation is observation. I drive >>> 250-500 miles a week. I don't have a white coat and a clipboard. I have >>> white knuckles from grasping the wheel avoiding people who should't even >>> have a license for an ox cart. >>> >>> I think my real-world observations are just as valid. >>> >>> I'll tell you what. My cousin works for the NYT. I'll have her publish a >>> column I'll write and then you can say it's Gospel. >> >> >> Actually, the first story I heard about the inarguably valid research was >> on TV about 5 years ago. It was on Fox News. > > My observations of drivers who shouldn't even be let anywhere near a car > are valid, too. OK, but we're talking about the effects of cell phones on driving ability, not the overall incompetence of most drivers. You cannot measure the effects of cell phones by looking out your window. You'll spot the worst, most obvious cases, but you will not spot the ticking time bombs.
From: Clive on 12 Mar 2010 18:15 In message <hnedu8$mo4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> writes > have white >knuckles from grasping the wheel Then you're simply driving too fast. -- Clive
From: charlesgrozny on 12 Mar 2010 19:28
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hnee29$mo4$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:57:19 -0500, dr_jeff wrote: > >> 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 > > > If you're going to continue this thread, I'd suggest the following: > > http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yr-uQp2mL.jpg > > (don't hit me!!!) ;) > > In this case, that book needs to be retitled: "Arguing with Joe No Bedroom, Utzmost Jeff, Gary Burnmore, Whiney Joe Besser, etc." Charles Grozny |