Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 16:58 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hned6q$vmc$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:43:39 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>>> All valid research on this subject says your theory is incorrect. >>> >>> My OBSERVATION says that it is. >>> >>> Don't get out much, do ya? I spend my entire day on the road. There are >>> people that shouldn't be driving at all, let alone with cell phones. >> >> >> Your observation is faulty. > > 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. And by the way, MY observations are the exact opposite of yours. Even the best drivers with cell phones are deficient, according to my definition of good driving. My definition is perfect and it's the only one that matters. I am the second best non-professional driver on earth. There's one driver better than me, and it's not you.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:06 "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".
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 17:06 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hnedat$vmc$6(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:43:13 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:4u-dnWo6GusXKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Conscience wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Why not annually, with training to follow-up on the results of the >>> tests, to help drivers learn to drive better. They can simulate >>> situations so that drivers learn how avoid crashes and deal with >>> problems. >> >> Too expensive. Design the first driving test to force failure. Eliminate >> 90% of drivers from the road, permanently. Some people are simply not >> good >> with spatial relationships and they never will be. They should not be >> driving. > > Says who? YOU?! > > Discounted considering the source. Are you disagreeing about the idea of spatial relationships?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Mar 2010 17:07 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.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Mar 2010 17:09
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@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 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!!!) ;) |