No fault cell phone law

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.

It's out of control.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

Governor Swill

2024-03-17 03:21:21 UTC

Post by pothead
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Have you considered that maybe some good dick would improve your rectal retinitis?

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

The Real Bev

2024-03-17 04:41:25 UTC

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

My grandson and I were both hit in signaled crosswalks by women who
couldn't possibly have hit us if they'd been watching where they were
going. I was lucky and the bitch only broke my bicycle seat so I just
yelled at her; grandson spent several days in the hospital and HIS
bitch's insurance didn't cover the whole cost.

There should have been jail time for his bitch.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather not have neighbors. If I can see them, they're too close.
In fact, if I can see them through a rifle scope, they're too close.
-- Anonymous Coward

Stan Brown

2024-03-17 16:03:20 UTC

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.

One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Frank Slootweg

2024-03-17 16:27:03 UTC

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:

Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns

I think that says enough.

Stan Brown

2024-03-17 17:27:04 UTC

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.

Indeed. Yes, I agree.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

The Real Bev

2024-03-17 20:26:54 UTC

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

Of course not, but we can still fantasize if we want to :-)

Post by Frank Slootweg
The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
I think that says enough.

Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
snip the ones I'm not involved in.

I do apologize for not giving notice, though.

--
Cheers, Bev
Todd Flanders' hobbies include being quiet on long rides,
clapping to songs and diabetes.

Frank Slootweg

2024-03-17 20:44:46 UTC

[...]

Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.

Post by The Real Bev
I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
snip the ones I'm not involved in.

Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple
news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal
September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.

Post by The Real Bev
I do apologize for not giving notice, though.

No worries, just pay attention on the crosswalk when I'm approaching!

The Real Bev

2024-03-17 21:41:50 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.

No. The only readers will be those in the group that *I* am reading,
and those are the only ones I'm concerned with. It's sufficient to say
"other groups snipped". If anyone is interested they can look at
previous postings.

No idea, but I take TB's word for it. It doesn't make sense to me
either. Next time I'll try x-posting to all of them and quote the exact
error message.

Post by The Real Bev
I do apologize for not giving notice, though.

No worries, just pay attention on the crosswalk when I'm approaching!

Always! Well, you have to actually be IN it, not just approaching.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Attention: All virgins report to Paradise immediately!!
This is not a drill." --MWilliams

Frank Slootweg

2024-03-18 11:23:12 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.

Looking up the posting to which you responded may not be easy if
people - like me - have killed crossposts to these troll groups.

I had to look at the 'source' of your post, look up the last
message-ID in the 'References:' header and the lookup that message-id on
<http://al.howardknight.net/>. For *me*, that's not too hard, but many -
and probably even most - people don't know how to do that.

So listing the groups you deleted is the decent thing to do.

No idea, but I take TB's word for it. It doesn't make sense to me
either. Next time I'll try x-posting to all of them and quote the exact
error message.

OK, we'll see.

Andrew

2024-03-18 15:09:26 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
I had to look at the 'source' of your post, look up the last
message-ID in the 'References:' header and the lookup that message-id on
<http://al.howardknight.net/>. For *me*, that's not too hard, but many -
and probably even most - people don't know how to do that.

I suspect anyone intelligent who has been on Usenet for more than
a short time already knows how to look up a Message-ID from the References
header simply because it's useful & it has been discussed many times.

For example:
<http://al.howardknight.net/>
<http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php>
<http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual>
<https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php>
etc.

AJL

2024-03-17 17:26:07 UTC

On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

A driver can have the right of way.

Instead, there are various situations where you must yield the right
of way. You only proceed when none of those situations exist.

If you must legally yield, you do it for another driver who has the
right of way. An example would be yielding the right of way to oncoming
traffic when making a left turn.

One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in your path. No
matter how heedless or annoying they may be, you have no right to
hit them with your vehicle

A pedestrian only has the right of way in a crosswalk. Cars have the
right of way everywhere else. In a non-crosswalk car-pedestrian ACCIDENT
the driver in not held at fault and would not receive a ticket. (Unless
he has violated some other law like speeding or driving on the wrong
side of the road, etc.)

Pedestrians occasionally do get ticketed when they fail to yield to
oncoming vehicles when crossing the street outside of a crosswalk by
making the car slow or stop.

or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a
pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
criminal laws, not traffic laws...

Frankie

2024-03-17 21:21:04 UTC

Post by AJL

or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a
pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
criminal laws, not traffic laws...

In California, there's a relatively recent "bike safety" law which makes it
a legal offense to be fewer than, I think it's 3 feet, from a cyclist.

I don't know if it applies to pedestrians, now that I think about it.

Let me google that for me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+3+feet+law+cyclist

https://www.calbike.org/our_initiatives/give_me_3/
"The law requires motorists to give at least three feet of clearance when
passing people riding bikes."

Stan Brown

2024-03-18 18:32:56 UTC

Post by AJL
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

A driver can have the right of way.

I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are all
just trying to keep things simple and readable.

The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
intersection:
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
another vehicle.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

AJL

2024-03-18 21:45:54 UTC

Post by AJL
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

A driver can have the right of way.

I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

It's simple logic. At the accident scene the cop is talking to the
drivers. He tells the one getting the ticket that he's at fault because
the other driver had the right of way.

Post by Stan Brown
When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are
all just trying to keep things simple and readable.

And factual. You're arguing semantics. Even though the code may say
'vehicle', it is not the responsible party in traffic law. The driver is...

Post by Stan Brown
The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an

I spent hundreds of hours in traffic court in a prior life and no lawyer
or judge ever had a problem with with the codified driver-vehicle right
of way distinction.

Post by Stan Brown
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
another vehicle.

Yup. AZ law is written pretty much the same...

Andrew

2024-03-17 21:12:30 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)

Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example,
where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like
blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but
they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).

The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker,
without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so
that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).

On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.

Post by Stan Brown
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.

Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large
container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are
positioned correctly in the red right return channel.

Post by Stan Brown
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.

Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
after cell phone use came into existence.

I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.

It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.

Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.

That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
people). They can't comprehend math.

Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.

First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.

Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.

Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
up?

Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.

Why is that?

Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.

Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.

They don't.
They never did.

There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.

Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.

Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).

Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.

1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)

But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.

The reason is simple.

The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

Enrico Papaloma

2024-03-17 21:35:49 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example,
where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like
blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but
they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).
The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker,
without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so
that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).
On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.

Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.
Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
after cell phone use came into existence.
I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.
It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.
Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.
That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
people). They can't comprehend math.
Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.
Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
up?
Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.
Why is that?
Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
They don't.
They never did.
There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.
Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

+1

Most people assume without any more thinking than just guessing that
cellphones increase accident rates, but they actually decreased accident
rates (for a variety of reasons) as much as they increased them.

That's why they were a wash in all the reliable US statistics census
which shows normalized accident rates unchanged for the past 50 years
(going down slightly every year but never going up and never spiking).

The Real Bev

2024-03-17 21:52:08 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

That's generally known as "keeping him honest". There are a number of
sports variants -- a sudden dropshot from the backcourt in tennis, for
instance.

Post by Andrew
On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.

Same thing.

Can you give me a cite for that? I've often wondered about the
wait-requirement for the little old lady on the far side of the 6-lane
street who will need 3 cycles to actually make it across the street.

Post by Andrew
even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.

I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he
suddenly broke into a sprint.

Post by Andrew
Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
after cell phone use came into existence.
I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.
It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.
Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.
That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
people). They can't comprehend math.
Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.
Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
up?
Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.
Why is that?
Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
They don't.
They never did.
There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.
Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

One thing I noticed -- the sudden decrease in peripheral perception
(different from vision, I think) when I picked up the phone to answer
it. I did this once, when I first got a cellphone. Never again. I
rarely need to make/receive calls so ignoring or pulling over just isn't
a big deal.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Attention: All virgins report to Paradise immediately!!
This is not a drill." --MWilliams

Andrew

2024-03-18 06:02:27 UTC

Post by Andrew
Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side,

This California DMV book (on page 48) says you hve to wait if the
pedestrian is "still in the intersection" but it doesn't define it.
https://static.epermittest.com/media/filer_public/41/b5/41b51b9c-c7c8-45bb-a864-f2ab12a6a3d9/california-drivers-manual-2022.pdf

On page 57 that California DMV book says you must let the pedestrian safely
"finish" the crossing.

This one also says the pedestrian has to "safely finish" the crossing
on page 41. https://cdn.dmv-test-pro.com/handbook/ca-drivers-handbook.pdf

But when I looked specifically for the law, all the laywer's cites clogged
up the Internet who have filled the Internet (given the search terms) with
their personal injury sales pitches.

This (from lawyers) indicates I may have been wrong.
https://www.karlaw.com/do-drivers-have-to-wait-for-pedestrians-to-cross-the-street/
"In California, the law does not state that a driver must wait for the
pedestrian to fully exit the crosswalk or the street before they proceed on
their way in their lane. A pedestrian must be safely out of the driver's
path of travel for them to begin driving again. According to the law, a
driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection while exercising due care at all times."

They changed it because of Black & Latino pedestrians, apparently.
https://www.casebarnettlaw.com/blog/9-crosswalk-laws-pedestrian-rules-every-californian-should-know.cfm

So it depends on what "safety finishes" the crossing means, I guess.

Post by Andrew
even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.

I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he
suddenly broke into a sprint.

While I was looking that up, I found out that only recently jaywalking was
struck from the books in California on January 1st 2023 (a year ago).

"As of January 1, 2023 in California, violations of S21955 ¡V jaywalking
will no longer be against the law as long as it is done safely (for
example, there is no oncoming traffic at the time of the crossing). Prior
to 2023, jaywalking was prosecuted as an infraction carrying a fine of
around $200."
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/california-crosswalk-laws/

Post by Andrew
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

The phone does not cause accidents to increase in the USA.

All the reliable stats (not from lawyers, police, or insurance outfits)
from the US Census (which has been keeping these stats since the 1920s
shows that accident rates have been slowly decreasing for years.

There was no spike before, during or after cell phones existed.
Just like with the Fermi Paradox, the Cellphone Paradox exists.

a. Certainly they're an added distraction.
b. Yet, just as certainly, they also prevent accidents.
c. And just as certainly, there are MANY distractions while driving.

It turns out that the reason cellphones don't add distractions overall is
that they simply replace one of the top ten distractions while driving.

There's a reason insurance companies give "good student discounts" because
dumb drivers will be distracted no matter what those top ten are.

It seems two things competed to make the accident rate have no bearing
whatsoever on the accident rate in all fifty states in the USA.

1. The added distraction just replaced one of the others in the top ten
2. There are safety factors inherent in using a cell phone too

But dumb people will have accidents no matter which of the top ten
distractions they fall prey to.

It's why insurance companies charge them more.

The odd thing though is in the UK, there was a spike in accidents.
Just not in the USA or Australia (where good data exists).

Carlos E.R.

2024-03-20 13:17:52 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)

Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
accidents.

You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

AJL

2024-03-20 15:33:34 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
accidents.

Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...

Carlos E.R.

2024-03-20 15:57:42 UTC

Post by AJL

Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?

Yes :-D

It is also forbidden to handle the GPS. I wonder why they don't prohibit
touch controls, but at least they get a worse security score in the
tests. Some brands are reverting to actual knobs.

Post by AJL
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...

Or more things like kissing+. At least on the movies. :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Andrew

2024-03-20 17:57:23 UTC

Post by AJL
Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?

Yes :-D
It is also forbidden to handle the GPS. I wonder why they don't prohibit
touch controls, but at least they get a worse security score in the
tests. Some brands are reverting to actual knobs.

We've covered this in gory detail in the past, where it turns out that
handsfree laws had zero first order effects on the accident rate in the
USA.

In fact, no safety law whatsoever had any first order effect on the
accident rate, going back decades, according to the aggregate studies we
covered in the past (and which Carlos seems to already have forgotten).

There was only a statistically valid second-order effect on length of
hospital stay AFTER the accident, particularly due to airbag and seatbelt
laws, which is what the reliable scientific aggregate papers concluded.

Post by AJL
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...

Or more things like kissing+. At least on the movies. :-p

Cellphones were definitely an added distraction.

But...

Adding one distraction to a list of a hundred existing distractions, does
not measurably change the sheer number of distractions facing any driver.

There's a reason insurance companies give a "good student discount", which
is that the more situationally aware intelligence a person has, the less
likely they re to be in an accident, and no, a deer randomly jumping out at
you is _still_ avoidable if you are situationally aware and have control of
your vehicle.

There are two fundamental reasons why cellphone ownership skyrocketing
rates did not have any effect on the reliable stats of USA accident rates.

1. The cellphone simply displaced one of a hundred other distractions, and,
2. The cellphone prevents accidents as much as the cellphone causes them.

In the end, all the reliable statistics (i.e., not from lawyers, cops or
insurance companies who each have a different ax to grind) show that in the
USA, the accident rate did not change (other than drop every year) from
before, during and after cellphones came into wide existence.

If you think otherwise, since we've covered this in gory detail in the
past, just come up with a reliable statistic that says otherwise.

Carlos E.R.

2024-03-20 19:14:35 UTC

On 2024-03-20 18:57, Andrew wrote:

Notice that by following up to groups with "politic" in the name, my
filters automatically kill the subthread. Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.

Removing:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Andrew

2024-03-20 21:49:12 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.

Doesn't matter. It's all been said before since we've discussed this in the
past in gory detail, where you don't remember anything that was said then.

The fact remains, everyone thinks that cellphones must raise the accident
rate simply because they're an added distraction, and they are an added
distraction - but there is no reliable evidence that they have any effect
whatsoever on the accident rate in reliably reported USA Census Bureau
Statistics.

Furthermore, the fact remains everyone thinks making laws to make people do
safe things would lower the accident rate, but again, teh reliable
scientific evidence shows thta also is not the case.

The laws have no first order effects whatsoever on safety but they do have
a minor but statistically valid second-order effect on length of hospital
stay.

This was covered on March 16, 2016 on this newsgroup, and again in even
more gory detail on July 6, 2020 on this very newsgroup, Carlos.

Morons (without a shred of evidence) disputed it then.
Those same morons (with no evidence) dispute it now.

Morons will always be morons, but the facts remain true.

The main reason cellphones have no effect on the accident rate is likely
two fold, one of which is there are hundreds of distractions. Adding one is
like adding another hair to your head. It changes nothing in statistics.

In addition, cellphones prevent accidents, so they have a cancelling effect
on the accident rate because they may prevent as many as they cause.

It's not clear why cellphones have no effect whatsoever on the accident
rate, but what's eminently clear in the reliable records is there is no
change in the downward trend of accident rates in the USA for decades.

Just like the first post-Covid should have been a superspreader event if
all the morons were correct (and it wasn't), the facts show that cellphones
do not change the accident rate (neither up, nor down) in effect.

As with the Fermi Paradox, if you feel otherwise, you have to answer this:
Q: Where are the accidents?

Hank Rogers

2024-03-21 01:54:32 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.

Doesn't matter. It's all been said before since we've discussed this in the
past in gory detail, where you don't remember anything that was said then.
The fact remains, everyone thinks that cellphones must raise the accident
rate simply because they're an added distraction, and they are an added
distraction - but there is no reliable evidence that they have any effect
whatsoever on the accident rate in reliably reported USA Census Bureau
Statistics.
Furthermore, the fact remains everyone thinks making laws to make people do
safe things would lower the accident rate, but again, teh reliable
scientific evidence shows thta also is not the case.
The laws have no first order effects whatsoever on safety but they do have
a minor but statistically valid second-order effect on length of hospital
stay.
This was covered on March 16, 2016 on this newsgroup, and again in even
more gory detail on July 6, 2020 on this very newsgroup, Carlos.
Morons (without a shred of evidence) disputed it then.
Those same morons (with no evidence) dispute it now.
Morons will always be morons, but the facts remain true.
The main reason cellphones have no effect on the accident rate is likely
two fold, one of which is there are hundreds of distractions. Adding one is
like adding another hair to your head. It changes nothing in statistics.
In addition, cellphones prevent accidents, so they have a cancelling effect
on the accident rate because they may prevent as many as they cause.
It's not clear why cellphones have no effect whatsoever on the accident
rate, but what's eminently clear in the reliable records is there is no
change in the downward trend of accident rates in the USA for decades.
Just like the first post-Covid should have been a superspreader event if
all the morons were correct (and it wasn't), the facts show that cellphones
do not change the accident rate (neither up, nor down) in effect.
Q: Where are the accidents?

Why not drop it then?
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places, but a real
smart guy could figure out ways to get away with it. Maybe even prove how
safe it is.

Get busy, and do something!

Andrew

2024-03-21 03:47:18 UTC

Post by Hank Rogers
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places

Plenty of things are illegal, where in California, it's now illegal to NOT
compost your food waste, but what does it mean to be illegal to you anyway?

New Law Gives California Green Light to Fine Residents
Who Don't Recycle Food Waste
https://californiainsider.com/california-news/new-law-gives-california-green-light-to-fine-residents-who-dont-recycle-food-waste-5579378

Post by Hank Rogers
Maybe even prove how safe it is.

Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>

Andrew

2024-03-21 03:52:57 UTC

Post by Hank Rogers
Maybe even prove how safe it is.

Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>

Most people are shockingly stupid, but that's what we have to deal with.
1. The morons have it easy
2. They never look anything up
3. They just make it up all the time

Which is why only a moron believes cellphones raised the accident rate.
They're sure of it.

They're all Dunning-Kruger left of Mount Stupid morons.

Me?
I would have thought the same thing the morons did, at least at first.
But then I looked it up.

However, it's a bitch to look things up.

But I made it easier for everyone, with this thread.
https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1692&group=news.admin.peering#1692

You're welcome.

The Real Bev

2024-03-23 21:14:20 UTC

Post by Hank Rogers
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places

Plenty of things are illegal, where in California, it's now illegal to NOT
compost your food waste, but what does it mean to be illegal to you anyway?
New Law Gives California Green Light to Fine Residents
Who Don't Recycle Food Waste
https://californiainsider.com/california-news/new-law-gives-california-green-light-to-fine-residents-who-dont-recycle-food-waste-5579378

Post by Hank Rogers
Maybe even prove how safe it is.

Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>

FWIW. Here we're expected to put our food waste in plastic bags, tie
them closed, and deposit the little bags on top of our yard waste in the
yard waste container. There was much discussion about the nature of
these plastic bags and whether or not we were required to buy
compostable plastic bags.

The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by
employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.

I think unicorn poop may be involved, but I have no actual cite for
that. I can't imagine that the little bags aren't completely torn up by
rolling around in a truck full of twigs, logs, etc. but what do I know?

I'm sure that this works as well as plastic-recycling, aren't you?

--
Cheers, Bev
I remember when everybody posted to Usenet with their real,
deliverable e-mail address. Of all the sins committed by the
spammers, destroying the viability of the open Internet was the worst.
(Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, news.admin.net-abuse.email)

Your Name

2024-03-23 21:54:40 UTC

Post by Hank Rogers
Fiddling with a phone while driving is illegal most places

Plenty of things are illegal, where in California, it's now illegal to NOT
compost your food waste, but what does it mean to be illegal to you anyway?
New Law Gives California Green Light to Fine Residents
Who Don't Recycle Food Waste
https://californiainsider.com/california-news/new-law-gives-california-green-light-to-fine-residents-who-dont-recycle-food-waste-5579378

Post by Hank Rogers
Maybe even prove how safe it is.

Been there. Done that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1681&group=news.admin.peering#>

FWIW. Here we're expected to put our food waste in plastic bags, tie
them closed, and deposit the little bags on top of our yard waste in
the yard waste container. There was much discussion about the nature
of these plastic bags and whether or not we were required to buy
compostable plastic bags.
The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by
employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.
I think unicorn poop may be involved, but I have no actual cite for
that. I can't imagine that the little bags aren't completely torn up
by rolling around in a truck full of twigs, logs, etc. but what do I
know?
I'm sure that this works as well as plastic-recycling, aren't you?

Last year here in New Zealand, the Auckland City Council delivered
little green hand-carried bins to every house. These are meant to be
used to put food waste in and collected from the kerbside each week.

And, as with most of these greenie knee-jerk reaction ideas, it's a
complete and utter waste of time and money.

1. It was forced on every household and the cost is an added fee in the
household city taxes ... whether or not you wanted the bin, whether or
not you use the bin. So those who already compost their own food waste
are paying for a service they don't need or want. (For comparison, the
general rubbish collection is paid for via tags you buy to put on the
bin which, if not stolen beforehand, are taken off when the bin is
emptied. The recycling wheelie bins are emptied for "free", although
would be included in increased household city taxes.)

2. The bins are small and light (especially when empty), so they blow all
over the street in windy weather.

3. Houses now put out two bins every week (three every second week when
the recycling is collected) on the same day in the collection area,
meaning the kerbside and/or pavement is covered in bins, and then
when empited many are left on the road.

4. There are presumably* now two rubbish trucks going around doing the
collecting every week on the same day. Three trucks on every second
week when the recycling wheelie bin also goes out. (* I've never
bothered to see if both the general rubbish and food waste is simply
dumped into the same collection truck, but recycling does go in a
separate truck to general rubbish.)

5. All the food waste is *supposedly* trucked down south to another city,
three hours drive away, for processing into whatever they use it for:
biogas, fertiliser, etc. (The same company processess the food waste
from all over New Zealand's North Island.)

Harry S Robins

2024-03-24 20:18:18 UTC

Post by The Real Bev
FWIW. Here we're expected to put our food waste in plastic bags, tie
them closed, and deposit the little bags on top of our yard waste in the
yard waste container. There was much discussion about the nature of
these plastic bags and whether or not we were required to buy
compostable plastic bags.

There are two kinds of people when it comes to composting ability, one of
which lives in an area where it's not feasible to compost into the ground.

I'm lucky in that I compost everything back into the ground, which requires
five things to do well, all of which I have an abundance of to do it right.
1. Layers of shredded paper/cardboard + kitchen/yard greens & browns
2. Space (to put the compost while it's being degraded by microbes)
3. Water (to enable the microbes to survive while dining on your scraps)
4. Periodic aeration (as oxygen consuming microbes do a better job)
5. Time (each bucket of compost takes about 3 months to decompose)

It would also be nice to have an outdoor industrial sized blender, as a
wood chipper is too big & messy and a kitchen blender far too small.

Post by The Real Bev
The yard waste containers are picked up by a grabber-truck and the
contents dumped into the truck. Supposedly the bags are removed by
employees in hazmat suits where the yard waste trucks dump their
contents. They are then transported... somewhere... something.

I always wanted to see what it looks like at the scrap yard where they have
to separate the broken lightbulbs from the bags of dog poop & the like. :)

Post by The Real Bev
I think unicorn poop may be involved, but I have no actual cite for
that. I can't imagine that the little bags aren't completely torn up by
rolling around in a truck full of twigs, logs, etc. but what do I know?
I'm sure that this works as well as plastic-recycling, aren't you?

It seems that for a short while, China bought our plastics but now it's no
longer feasible where a lot seems to be dumped into the oceans instead.

sms

2024-03-29 16:37:07 UTC

On 3/23/2024 2:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

In my area the food waste and yard waste are turned into compost which
is available to residents for free. They do a good job at removing the
non-compostable stuff that gets dumped into the yard waste bins.

In fact, today is the first day of the seven month window that it is
open:
<https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-sustainability/compost-site>

There are no garbage police, yet, but it does benefit residents to sort
their trash into the gray, blue, and green bins because garbage rate
increases are tied to the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill,
versus waste that is turned into compost, or waste that is,
theoretically, recycled (I say "theoretically" because most of the
recycled material is usually no longer recycled (other than aluminum cans)).

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

Alan Browne

2024-03-21 23:58:17 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
Notice that by following up to groups with "politic" in the name, my
filters automatically kill the subthread. Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns

I should be as careful. I have the bad habit of not removing the booby
sites when replying x-thread...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

The Real Bev

2024-03-20 19:13:40 UTC

Post by AJL

Fine with me. The one time I did it I could actually FEEL my peripheral
perception closing down. It's fortunate that I rarely need to use the
phone in the car, and when I do I pull over and stop.

Post by AJL
Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...

I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door. I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works
entirely too well.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Many realize that the control of language is power. If you can't speak
your mind, your opinions have no weight." --nightfire-unique

Carlos E.R.

2024-03-20 19:34:33 UTC

...

Post by The Real Bev
I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door.

Post by The Real Bev
I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works
entirely too well.

It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

The Real Bev

2024-03-20 20:13:51 UTC

Post by The Real Bev
I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door.

Post by The Real Bev
I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works
entirely too well.

It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

Nope. Anything at all.

--
Cheers, Bev
Hmph. I used to have snow tires. Never again. They melted in the
spring. I won't even start going on about my wood stove.
-- websurf1

Indira

2024-03-20 22:11:26 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

Nope. Anything at all.

In Myers-Briggs terms, maybe you're likely a strong "J" since you appear to
make rigid rules for yourself that you expect others to follow as you do.

If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out.
https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality

But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.

The Real Bev

2024-03-20 23:02:07 UTC

Post by Indira

Post by Carlos E.R.
It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

Nope. Anything at all.

In Myers-Briggs terms, maybe you're likely a strong "J" since you appear to
make rigid rules for yourself that you expect others to follow as you do.

I don't expect anybody to do anything except eventually die. Everything
else is up to them. I make rules for myself based on 80+ years of
experience. I am happy to give advice, but don't require anyone to take
it. I'm willing to admit my shortcomings and adapt. Many are not.

Post by Indira
If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out.
https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality

I tried to read this stuff decades ago and found it hopelessly useless.

Post by Indira
But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.

No idea what that is. If you seriously want me and everyone else to
know, spit it out.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Windows Freedom Day: a holiday that moves each year, the date of which
is calculated by adding up the total amount of time a typical person
must spend restarting windows and then determining how many work weeks
that would correspond to." -- Trygve Lode

Indira

2024-03-21 00:17:57 UTC

Post by Indira
If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out.
https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality

I tried to read this stuff decades ago and found it hopelessly useless.

I used to teach this stuff so I'm professionally trained in the corporate
world as to what it means, where many who "think" they understand it, try
to make it into what it's not. It has limitations. But it's also useful.

Post by Indira
But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.

No idea what that is. If you seriously want me and everyone else to
know, spit it out.

In a nutshell, M-B takes only four characteristics of human beings, where
there are hundreds of possible characteristics, so that's the first
limitation - it's only measuring four things about human nature.

Only two of the four characteristics have anything to do with each other.
The other two characteristics have nothing to do with the rest of them.

The two that have anything to do with each other are the middle two.
b. How you prefer to... get data to make decisions
c. How you prefer to... act on that data to make decisions

The other two have NOTHING to do with each other, but are important too.
a. How you prefer to... energize and in what kind of environment
d. How you prefer to... organize your life and expect others to act

Andrew

2024-03-20 17:49:42 UTC

The conversation has absolutely nothing to do with hands free operation.
The conversation is that the accident rate you predicted, does not exist.

You made up the increase in accident rate (in the USA, during cellphones).
Why?

I don't know why.
Probably because you make everything up.

Dunno.

But even I would "think" the cellphone rate would go up simply because it's
a huge distraction. Just like the Fermi Paradox, the paradox is why would
the cellphone rate NOT go up during the meteoric rise in cellphone
ownership?

There are two fundamental reasons why the accident rate in the USA did NOT
go up (where reliable US Census Bureau statistics on accident rates for all
50 states go way back to the 1920s) which are, summarized, the following:
A. Cellphones decreased as much as increased individual accident causes
B. The "added distraction" merely displaced one of hundreds of distractions

That's the answer to the Cellphone Accident Rate Paradox.
Q: Where are the accidents?
A: The accident rate in the USA was wholly unaffected by cellphones.

But you tell me why you think the accident rate increase you seem to think
happened, when you can't find a single reliable statistic saying that it
did.

Post by Carlos E.R.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

Nobody called _them_ the morons, so go back and read what was written.

I said three agencies have an ax to grind, and that they skew the stats.
1. Police
2. Insurance
3. Lawyers

What I suggested, which you didn't do, so you're still clueless, is that
you can't find anywhere in reliable records what you believe to be true.

Not in the USA you can't.
Try it before you respond as I know a lot more about it than you do.

People who say the accident rate increased, are always incredibly stupid
people because they're just making up out of nothing what never happened.

You can try to prove me wrong, you know.
Show me a reliable statistic showing the accident rate increased, Carlos.
a. Not from skewed agencies
b. During the cellphone ownership meteoric rise period
c. Which was well before all the hands-free laws went into effect
(not that they changed anything - but that's a different statistic)

Prove me wrong, Carlos.
All it takes is a single reliable fact (which you can't find).

Frank Slootweg

2024-03-21 15:34:47 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)

In our country (NL) there are similar laws and we *know* that use of
mobile phones causes accidents, including with severe injury and death
(like 4 people in a (other) car), because we keep detailed stats on
circumstances, cause, etc..

'Andrew' seems to have some problems with statistics, because the
accident rate not going up (BTW, it *does* go up in our country) doesn't
mean that use of mobile phones doesn't cause accidents (to anyone with a
somewhat functioning brain, it's blatantly obvious that it does). *Why*
he can't draw (t)his erronous conclusion, has been explained to him all
the previous times his silly claim came up. Some people learn, others
don't.

Post by Carlos E.R.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

When 'Andrew' starts insulting, everyone knows he has no case, but
can't handle/admit that fact.

Andrew

2024-03-24 20:31:33 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
In our country (NL) there are similar laws and we *know* that use of
mobile phones causes accidents, including with severe injury and death
(like 4 people in a (other) car), because we keep detailed stats on
circumstances, cause, etc.

There's a HUGE difference between an "accident" and the "accident rate".

Post by Frank Slootweg
'Andrew' seems to have some problems with statistics, because the
accident rate not going up (BTW, it *does* go up in our country) doesn't
mean that use of mobile phones doesn't cause accidents (to anyone with a
somewhat functioning brain, it's blatantly obvious that it does). *Why*
he can't draw (t)his erronous conclusion, has been explained to him all
the previous times his silly claim came up. Some people learn, others
don't.

I never once said inattentive driving doesn't cause accidents, Frank.

Post by Carlos E.R.
You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

When 'Andrew' starts insulting, everyone knows he has no case, but
can't handle/admit that fact.

I'm extremely well educated, Frank, which if you consider that mere fact to
be an insult to you, then that's your issue to deal with Frank. Not mine.

Read what I wrote, which is that the reliable statistics in the USA (and
Australia, by the way, but not in the UK for some odd reason) clearly and
emphatically show the accident rate in all fifty states has not changed
from its steady downward trend every year for the past few decades.

That steady downward trend remained such before, during & after the
meteoric rise in the use and ownership of cellphones while driving.

If you want to dispute those reliable statistics, you need to provide
something more than your "guess" that all reliable statistics are wrong.

Jan K.

2024-03-17 21:29:30 UTC

Post by pothead
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.

That's why the DOT enacted the high rear brake light (long ago).

Let's see if it worked to reduce rear-end collisions, shall we
(since no recent USA safety law has ever reduced fatalities to date
although seat belt laws did reduce length of hospital stay).

Are we safer 30 years after third brake light mandate?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2016/09/13/third-brake-light/90317854/

Their answers are equivocal, and they make use of the bogus insurance
statistics, where they don't take into account they cherry pick.

Let's look deeper.
https://www.motoradvices.com/how-many-brake-lights-are-required-by-law/

Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?

Governor Swill

2024-03-18 11:10:00 UTC

Post by Jan K.

Post by pothead
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.

That's why the DOT enacted the high rear brake light (long ago).
Let's see if it worked to reduce rear-end collisions, shall we
(since no recent USA safety law has ever reduced fatalities to date
although seat belt laws did reduce length of hospital stay).
Are we safer 30 years after third brake light mandate?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2016/09/13/third-brake-light/90317854/
Their answers are equivocal, and they make use of the bogus insurance
statistics, where they don't take into account they cherry pick.
Let's look deeper.
https://www.motoradvices.com/how-many-brake-lights-are-required-by-law/
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?

Yes.

The EU requires the top brake light. Most of the planet uses EU safety and emissions regs
(ours are unique to the US) and Europeans sell a lot of cars in Asia, Africa and South
America.

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Alan Browne

2024-03-18 18:31:48 UTC

Post by Governor Swill
The EU requires the top brake light. Most of the planet uses EU safety and emissions regs
(ours are unique to the US) and Europeans sell a lot of cars in Asia, Africa and South
America.

As I recall it, US diesel emissions rules were (are?) quite a bit
tighter than EU rules. At least it was so about 5 years ago. This
stems from California rules which are usually US wide pretty quick (due
to manufacturing costs).

Then of course you have VW/Audi's "compliance" that cost them criminal
indictments and billions in fines...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Bill Powell

2024-03-18 19:34:29 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
As I recall it, US diesel emissions rules were (are?) quite a bit
tighter than EU rules.

Does the EU have rules for every car requiring the tire low pressure
indicator?

Post by Alan Browne
At least it was so about 5 years ago. This
stems from California rules which are usually US wide pretty quick (due
to manufacturing costs).

Yes. California is bigger than many European countries in size, population
and/or GDP (and likely in number of vehicles bought & sold since California
doesn't allow used cars to be bought out of state if they have fewer than
7,500 miles on them - as they won't be registered & can't be registered).

Post by Alan Browne
Then of course you have VW/Audi's "compliance" that cost them criminal
indictments and billions in fines...

I think those execs got away scott free in Germany but if they travel to
the USA (which they won't), they will be arrested and eventually jailed.

It was a school in (I think) Virginia (or North Carolina?) that caught them
red handed, but it was the California Air Resource Board that investigated
and assessed the initial fines.

Apparently Germany didn't care even though stockholders were hurt bad.

Alan Browne

2024-03-19 00:33:23 UTC

Post by Bill Powell

Post by Alan Browne
As I recall it, US diesel emissions rules were (are?) quite a bit
tighter than EU rules.

Does the EU have rules for every car requiring the tire low pressure
indicator?

Squirrel!

Post by Bill Powell

Post by Alan Browne
At least it was so about 5 years ago. This stems from California
rules which are usually US wide pretty quick (due to manufacturing
costs).

Yes. California is bigger than many European countries in size,

Irrelevant as diesel emissions in the EU are not country specific but EU
as a whole (and E economic area as legally applicable; and the UK).

That is .. a population significantly larger than the US, never mind
California.

<more irrelevancies snipped>

Post by Bill Powell

Post by Alan Browne
Then of course you have VW/Audi's "compliance" that cost them criminal
indictments and billions in fines...

West Virginia U., Statler College.

Post by Bill Powell
them red handed, but it was the California Air Resource Board that
investigated
and assessed the initial fines.

EPA.

Post by Bill Powell
Apparently Germany didn't care even though stockholders were hurt bad.

Nonsense.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

super70s

2024-03-18 20:17:09 UTC

Post by Jan K.

Post by pothead
Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance
you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of them are rear
end accidents.

That's why the DOT enacted the high rear brake light (long ago).
Let's see if it worked to reduce rear-end collisions, shall we
(since no recent USA safety law has ever reduced fatalities to date
although seat belt laws did reduce length of hospital stay).
Are we safer 30 years after third brake light mandate?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2016/09/13/third-brake-light/90317854/
Their answers are equivocal, and they make use of the bogus insurance
statistics, where they don't take into account they cherry pick.
Let's look deeper.
https://www.motoradvices.com/how-many-brake-lights-are-required-by-law/
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?

I doubt if a high brake light is going to make a damn bit of difference
to someone engrossed in a cellphone chat.

Andrew

2024-03-18 20:47:40 UTC

Post by super70s

Post by Jan K.
Interesting the third brake light isn't required in some states.
How about other areas of the world other than just in the USA?

I doubt if a high brake light is going to make a damn bit of difference
to someone engrossed in a cellphone chat.

The cellphone has not caused any increase in accidents in any of the 50 US
States simply because of two main factors, which morons never considered.

1. While cellphones certainly are a distraction, driving has always had
a top-ten list of most distracting things, where what happened was
simply that the cellphone displaced one of the other distractions.

Hence, there is the same number of top-ten driving distractions,
where not everyone has a fighter-pilot situational awareness,
(which is why insurance companies charge smart people less).

Dumb people will always have accidents because they don't have
the cat-like situational awareness that intelligent people have.

That's one major reason why nobody can find reliable statistics
(not from lawyers, police or insurance companies, all of whom
have an ax to grind and who don't have to legally quote statistics
correctly like the US Census Bureau has the legal requirement)
showing any increase in accident rates from before, during and
after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership in the USA.

The accident rate morons claim - simply does not exist in the USA.

2. While cellphones certainly are a distraction, and while they simply
displaced one of the other top-ten distractions, they also prevent
accidents (e.g., good directions, traffic routing, detours, etc.).

Hence, the number of additional accidents that cellphones might
have caused are wiped out by the reduced accidents that they
prevent.

Again, these are the reasons for the facts, which are that none
of the reliable statistics from the US Census Bureau show any
uptick in the accident rate in any of the 50 US states since
before, during, and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership.

Only morons say there is an increase in the accident rate.
And they can never back up their claims in the reliable USA statistics
(they always cite lawyers, cops and insurance companies - who have a
vested interest in jacking up the fear from cellphone use in vehicles).

Oddly enough, even though in the USA where reliable statistics
have been kept since the 1920s by the Census Bureau, in the UK,
cell phone use did seem to raise the accident rate.

That's an oddity that I don't know much about other than I'm aware of it.
But if someone tells me that the accident rate in the USA went
up due to cell phones, I am either going to call them a moron
(if they just made it up), or they can try to back it up.

I've heard every one of their arguments and they always show
they're completely ignorant of the facts of the matter in the USA.

In summary, if someone says cellphones raise accident rates,
run away from them because they're saying that they're a moron.

P. Coonan

2024-03-24 03:14:26 UTC

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

Governor Swill

2024-03-24 14:11:59 UTC

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

I agree. While it is handy to have such detailed configurations possible, what if the
driver gets distracted trying to navigate multiple menus while driving? And who really
needs six transmission performance choices, four engine power profiles, steering input
delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc., etc.?

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

David Higton

2024-03-24 20:46:31 UTC

And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?

Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.

David

The Real Bev

2024-03-24 21:48:04 UTC

(non-phone groups snipped)

And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?

Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.

Adjustments that need to be made while driving shouldn't require taking
your eyes off the road. Period. I liked driving the Tesla for 10
minutes, but having to actually READ stuff (requiring reading glasses)
while driving is a recipe for disaster.

--
Cheers, Bev
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote
themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler (Unverified)

Richmond

2024-03-25 11:06:29 UTC

Post by The Real Bev
(non-phone groups snipped)

And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?

Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.

Adjustments that need to be made while driving shouldn't require
taking your eyes off the road. Period. I liked driving the Tesla for
10 minutes, but having to actually READ stuff (requiring reading
glasses) while driving is a recipe for disaster.

What about the speedometer?

AJL

2024-03-25 16:00:57 UTC

Post by Richmond

Post by The Real Bev
Adjustments that need to be made while driving shouldn't require
taking your eyes off the road. Period. I liked driving the Tesla
for 10 minutes, but having to actually READ stuff (requiring
reading glasses) while driving is a recipe for disaster.

What about the speedometer?

My car has a gadget that puts a copy of the speedometer on the
windshield by reflection so that you don't have to take your eyes off
the road to read it. It 'appears' just above the hood near the front of
the car as you look through it at the road. It also puts a speed limit
sign logo with the local speed limit for the road you're on next to it.
Very handy and has probably saved my ass more than once...

Governor Swill

2024-03-25 10:21:23 UTC

And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four engine
power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings, etc.,, etc.,
etc.?

Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.

*laughs and points*

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Norwin

2024-03-26 21:51:45 UTC

And who really needs six transmission performance choices, four
engine power profiles, steering input delay and feedback settings,
etc.,, etc., etc.?

Well, at least you won't find those in an electric vehicle.

But you will find a tablet with features that should never ever be found
in a human operated vehicle on the ground. They are distracting and take
longer to operate than basic buttons. Even Europe says they should be
removed from cars.

super70s

2024-03-25 19:06:25 UTC

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:14:26 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

The more feature-itis a car has the more they figure they can make
people shell out an arm and a leg for a car these days.

Governor Swill

2024-03-26 03:33:15 UTC

Post by super70s

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:14:26 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

The more feature-itis a car has the more they figure they can make
people shell out an arm and a leg for a car these days.

The interesting thing is that the car doesn't really cost any more to make with such
features. The manufacturer either turns them on in the computer, or doesn't.

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Zaidy036

2024-03-24 17:57:52 UTC

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.

Governor Swill

2024-03-25 10:23:20 UTC

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.

That's so but the thought and decision processes continue as a distraction. Over time and
with improved ai, you can do things like say, "Alexa, this sure is a boring drive. Spice
it up for us." At which point Alexa will steer it into oncoming traffic. ;-)

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Zaidy036

2024-03-25 13:23:22 UTC

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Zaidy036

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.

Alexa not involved. Built into Tesla software and does not control
steering or speed or stupidity.

Governor Swill

2024-03-25 17:54:32 UTC

Post by Zaidy036

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Zaidy036

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent
distance you are certain to see accidents and the vast majority of
them are rear end accidents.
It's out of control.

Battery electric vehicles with tablets for control panels are causing a
lot of problems too. Too many choices, reading and touch decisions to
make. Too much unneeded tech in cars these days.

But do not forget that they also accept verbal commands so as not to
have to search for a button on screen to tap.

Alexa not involved. Built into Tesla software and does not control
steering or speed or stupidity.

I take it you checked your sense of humor at the door?

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Richmond

2024-03-25 11:09:32 UTC

Jaywalking is not illegal in the UK.

bad💽sector

2024-03-29 01:17:29 UTC

https://imgur.com/zbyIOzT

Arno Welzel

2024-04-01 14:55:58 UTC

You completely misunderstand the meaning of "right-of-way". It does
*not* mean "you can driver under any circumstance, no matter what happens"!

Post by Thuma
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.

And then get prosecuted for reckless driving.

Post by Thuma
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

What to protect them from? From their lazyness not to keep an eye on the
street where they drive?

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Siri Cruise

2024-04-01 17:04:10 UTC

You completely misunderstand the meaning of "right-of-way". It does
*not* mean "you can driver under any circumstance, no matter what happens"!

Details vary by jurisdiction. Where I live nobody has the right to
hit people or vehicles regardless of who has right of way.
Everybody is expected to yield to emergency vehicles with sirens
and lights, it's illegal not to, but even these cannot go through
red lights and stop signs until they have verified all cross
traffic has yielded.

And pedestrians have right of way over everyone else.

Post by Thuma
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.

And then get prosecuted for reckless driving.

We do suffer a rash of childre3n in adult bodies.

Post by Thuma
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

What to protect them from? From their lazyness not to keep an eye on the
street where they drive?

Doofi are allowed to move here and attempt to amend laws with
initiatives.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

3rd World

2024-04-01 19:25:11 UTC

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thuma
Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just
run them over.
It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the
right-of-way to yield to someone who is more concerned with their
self-absorbed rudeness than personal safety.

You completely misunderstand the meaning of "right-of-way". It does
*not* mean "you can driver under any circumstance, no matter what happens"!

Where you live there are street takeovers and black flash mobs robbing
stores. Your politicians demand defunding the police and call them
racists for upholding laws.

Post by Siri Cruise
And pedestrians have right of way over everyone else.

If progressives had any hint of intelligence, they would engineer
"pedestrians" completely out of the equations like they have in many
conservative foreign countries. It's impossible to hit pedestrians or
bicyclists in some areas because there simply is no crossing of roads
now.

It's absolute insanity to mandate that someone driving a 5,000 pound
automobile share the road and yield to some fool riding a 40 pound bike
holding a cell phone in their hand and weaving into traffic.

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thuma
Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.

And then get prosecuted for reckless driving.

We do suffer a rash of childre3n in adult bodies.

In Sacramento (Transvestite nut sanctuary city), Los Angeles, and what's
left of San Francisco / Oakland.

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thuma
Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.

What to protect them from? From their lazyness not to keep an eye on
the street where they drive?

Doofi are allowed to move here and attempt to amend laws with
initiatives.

They did and look what's happened to a state that was once the greatest
in the union. Escape from New York predicted exactly what would happen
to California. Pelosi and Newsom have done more to destroy the state
than any politicians in history.

Governor Swill

2024-04-02 15:44:46 UTC

Post by 3rd World
Where you live

Another anonymous, drive by poster who won't stick around to face the embarrassment his
idiocy deserves.

Swill
--
"Eventually he turns on everyone, and soon it will be you and then the entire country."
- Anthony Scaramucci

https://www.gocomics.com/robrogers/2024/03/28

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Governor Swill

2024-04-02 15:43:43 UTC