Re: Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Air****ts?

In article <tNRtk.1134$w51.346@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Mike" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

> >>  Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
> >> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
even
> >> though such activity puts other people at risk.
> >
> > "drive with a cell phone"  ....  ohmygawd.  Hey, what about drive with
> > one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio 
> > or....?
> > Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
nothing
> > can distract the driver.
> >
> > (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
me).
> 
> Crusade all you want.  

it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by
people 
who don't understand how to analysis risk.  

>   Talking on 
> the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by
4-5 
> times.  

hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
cellphone usage has exploded?  In fact, the accident rate has remained
flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)


> But you prove my point beautifully.  

You don't understand proofs.

> People don't really give a 
> rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the 
> inconvienience is slight. 

Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets?  and leather jackets or
equivalent protective clothing when riding?  Talk about inconvenience.

Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
to sup****t the help being effective....

-- 
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)