Jamie and Jim write:
>> But hey -- I live the place where a traffic judge decided a woman
applying
>> makeup at 60 mph wasn't driving recklessly because she stayed in her lane
>> and didn't hit anything (true case -- last year!)...
> Where is this so I can stay really really far away from there?
I know you all are just having fun, but be careful what you wish for,
legislators are way too willing to turn us into criminals to save us from
ourselves the moment something bad happens. If you went through pilot
training, you'd learn that you can do many things at once in a very
stressful
environment. Its not easy, and can be scary, but you learn to avoid
focusing on any one thing for so long that you miss something that needs
your attention. So a lack of skill or an incident of stupidity can
cause an accident, but nobody has sufficient skill from the get-go, and
nobody is immune from stupidity. That is why pushing driving age higher or
outlawing cel phones is a waste - its insulting to think that people can't
learn to use their cars and gadgets, or that accidents won't happen. My
youngest brother was killed when someone talking on a cel rear-ended him,
so I should be outraged, but I am actually outraged by those who think
they'd solve a problem by legislating when and where we can use a cel.
Lexus does have a point - in an environment where your #1 goal should be
to reach point B alive, safety is a marketable attribute. I'm not perfect,
but that doesn't stop me from talking on the CB, playing the stereo, and
using a cel while driving. You can pretty much bet that even if one of
these
were a contributing factor in an accident, there's already a more relevant
traffic law which was violated. Feel free to point and laugh, or be shocked
and horrified, but always try to keep in mind the "no harm, no foul"
concept.
I'm sure I'm not alone in relying on that on a daily basis!
---
Jeffrey D. Blankenship Senior Technical Consultant
jblanken@itds.com ITDS - TRIS
neon enthusiast #478 Champaign, IL, USA
|