Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

In article tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01, "Mike" 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 support the help being effective....

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01, "Mike"
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)

You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number. They do track
injuries and fatalities which have been on a downward trend for the last 30
years or more for a variety of reasons like safer cars, safer roads,
increased seat belt useage, airbags, reduced drunk driving, and a number of
other things. The overall trend proves nothing in relationship to cell
phones unless you can calculate what the rate WOULD be without cell phones,
which has been done. The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...l_pho nes.pdf




But you prove my point beautifully.

You don't understand proofs.

Pot/Kettle.


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.

By "people" I obviously mean people in general. The numbers for seat belt
useage didn't rise dramatically until states started requiring them despite
the overwealming evidence that they save lives. Drunk driving didn't
decrease until punishment and enforcement were increased. There's other
examples as well.

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 support the help being effective....

My point was people don't care whether there is evidence or not. Clearly
there's evidence to show cell phones (which was just one example, but there
are others) increase risk, but there will always be those who will ignore
such evidence because possible solutions may create an inconvienience to
themselves.

As I said, you proved my point. You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike" wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you, 12?

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited, the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between 800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't being
used?

You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike"
wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post
this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you,
12?

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions
for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical thought.


I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited,
the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between
800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate
that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a
wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of
eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in economic
terms".


Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an
analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't
have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't
being
used?

Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer letting
people like you do their own research. When proof is provided, you want to
poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios that are
irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows that when
faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you will just
resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind.
So why should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?


You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what
you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Nor do I care really.


Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have I
advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a clue
about my motivations or what I support or don't.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
thought.

Liar.


By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
economic terms".

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer
letting people like you do their own research. When proof is provided,
you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios
that are irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows
that when faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you
will just resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change
your mind. So why should I waste my time providing proof of something
you're never going to accept anyway?

You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like this
one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
isn't it?


Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have
I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a
clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
thought.

Liar.


By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such
conclusions either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
economic terms".

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis
would certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason
to suspect theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why
I prefer letting people like you do their own research. When proof
is provided, you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless
what if scenarios that are irrelevant, if not to the point of
ridicule. It simply shows that when faced with evidence you can't
refute on a reasonable level, you will just resort to the
unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind. So why
should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?

You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like
this one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you
life, isn't it?


Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once
have I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do
you have a clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support,
you sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.=


What's your point, wannabe boi?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

What's your point, wannabe boi?


Bertie


You're the one with a point lamer. It's on the top of your empty head.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...


If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full effort,
perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.

I don't think you have it in you, though.

Good luck.


"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
thought.

Liar.


By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
economic terms".

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer
letting people like you do their own research. When proof is provided,
you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios
that are irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows
that when faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you
will just resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change
your mind. So why should I waste my time providing proof of something
you're never going to accept anyway?

You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like
this one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
isn't it?


Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have
I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a
clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:1Evuk.136$393.111@trnddc05...

If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full
effort, perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.

I don't think you have it in you, though.

Good luck.


Keep hat dancing and you'll work you way up to Anthony's level someday.