"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 7:21 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> Usually, no. I don't talk to the passengers unless I need to as in
>> trying to find some place. But from what I have read, talking to a live
>> passenger is not the same at all as using a cell phone even with blue
>> tooth. Has something to do with the person being right there with you.
>> Less distracting than talking to someone who is not there. If I am
>> driving through a tricky area such as one with lots of construction or I
>> am looking for an address, I won't have the radio on either.
>
> I talk to passengers when I'm driving but I don't turn to look at them
> when I'm doing so. I'm busy paying attention to the road and the traffic.
>
> I know it's not "real life" but when I see people on television shows turn
> their head to talk to the person in passenger seat, I cringe. Yes, I know
> they aren't really driving but I'm sure lots of people do so. I'm not one
> of them.

I cringe when they do that too.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:21:36 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> But from what I have read, talking to a live passenger
>> is not the same at all as using a cell phone even with blue tooth. Has
>> something to do with the person being right there with you. Less
>> distracting than talking to someone who is not there. If I am driving
>> through a tricky area such as one with lots of construction or I am
>> looking
>> for an address, I won't have the radio on either.
>
> Lots of accidents are caused by "distracted moms" (crying baby, kids
> fighting in the back seat, etc). Talking to a second adult or at
> least someone of driving age is not safe, but at least it's safer than
> yakking on the phone while driving.

I have actually asked passengers not to talk. Not always but sometimes I
need extra concentration. My husband will do the same. One case would be
having to drive on snow or ice. Everybody just keep your mouth shut unless
you see something that really must be called to my attention that perhaps I
didn't see. Like some other car spinning out or a dog in the road or some
such thing.

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>> >>> driving.
>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>> >
>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>
>> It's still just as dangerous.
>
> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
> passengers?

Yes, much more. I posted links as to why. I don't have the links handy
now. I can remember screaming at my husband because I felt he was going to
rear end someone. He got angry at me because he was talking to someone from
work on his Bluetooth. I can't remember now what the conversation was about
but numbers. Time or amount or some such thing. He was having to
concentrate on the figures and I think he didn't see the person ahead of him
slam the brakes on. Which is why when he makes the calls, I ask him to pull
over. Another thing I have seen people do a lot of is in using the voice
recognition thing, they actually look at the steering wheel. It's like they
think they are talking to a real person.

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>>> driving.
>>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>>
>>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>>> passengers?
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>>
>> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
>> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>>
>> Jill
>
> I disagree, totally.

Studies have shown that you are wrong.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/9/2014 8:12 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> Back when cell phones were fairly new and service prices dropped, I can
>> remember someone talking in the toilet in the stall next to me. I
>> thought they were talking to me.
>
> That happens to me occasionally if someone is wearing one of those
> bluetooth (I think) fits over the ear phones. A guy standing in line next
> to me said "Hello" so I said hello, then I realized he'd just answered a
> phone call. LOL

Sometimes with the Bluetooth they just appear crazy. They look like they
are talking to themselves.

We were in Winco (grocery store) and there was an older woman using her
Bluetooth all over the store. And not just to ask about groceries. She was
shouting and quite agitated about a family member. Went on and on about how
she shouldn't have done this and that and stuff with her kids. Then later
our paths crossed again and this time she was shouting about how some person
shouldn't have bought some thing. That's the sort of thing that I just
don't get!

If I am in a store to buy something for someone, I might call them to make
sure that I am getting the right thing. But I won't chit chat like that.
Nobody wants to hear your conversation.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:43:08 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>
>>> No. Every new car does not. Mine does not. I wouldn't want it.
>>> Studies
>>> have shown that is just as dangerous as using the phone otherwise.
>>
>> *You* were not the subject. Apparently it was an option you chose not
>> to install. so you haven't proven me wrong if that was your intent.
>> Someone who is so married to their cellphone that they text while
>> driving most certainly would choose the option. My cars came with it
>> - the option part would be to choose NOT to use it by NOT syncing the
>> bluetooth in the car with the bluetooth in the phone.
>
>You said that EVERY new car comes with it. Every car does not come with it!
>So yes, I did prove you wrong. I specifically got a car that did not have
>it because I do not want it and will not use it. Just because *your* cars
>came with it doesn't mean that all cars do.

FINALLY. You said something correct, sensible... and something I agree
with. It's patently obvious that not all new cars have all that junk -
not even as an option.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:48:58 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>>>> driving.
>>>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>>>> passengers?
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
>>> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> I disagree, totally.
>
>Studies have shown that you are wrong.

Since when do you have any interest in reality?

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>
>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>
>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>> passengers?
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>
> There are differences. Same with the radio. When traffic conditions
> warrant more attention, you block out the radio and concentrate on
> driving. Talking with a passenger is similar in that you can easily stop
> the conversation if traffic is dicey.
>
> Talking on the phone takes a bit more of the brain power. Even there,
> there is a difference between "what's for dinner" and giving tech support
> to a bomb deactivation. People on the phone are more apt to keep the
> conversation going.
>
> I use my phone very day on the way home from work. Usually, it is on a
> stretch of road with no cross traffic and modest speed. Conversation is
> minimal. I don't use it in fast moving rush hour traffic on congested
> highways.

I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use it
that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.

Cheri

"Janet Wilder" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 6/9/2014 11:26 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Monday, June 9, 2014 5:10:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Guess I'm the proverbial stick in the mud. No way am I putting
>>>> > decals
>>>> on my car. Or bumper stickers or anything else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Same here.
>>
>> I always buy plain license plate holders to replace the ones that come
>> with it, because I don't even want to advertise where I bought the car
>> at.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
> The license plate holder on my car says "my other ride is a cruise ship"

There ya go!

Cheri

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>> >>> driving.
>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>
>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>
>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>> passengers?
>
> Yes, much more. I posted links as to why. I don't have the links handy
> now. I can remember screaming at my husband because I felt he was going
> to rear end someone. He got angry at me because he was talking to someone
> from work on his Bluetooth. I can't remember now what the conversation
> was about but numbers. Time or amount or some such thing. He was having
> to concentrate on the figures and I think he didn't see the person ahead
> of him slam the brakes on. Which is why when he makes the calls, I ask
> him to pull over. Another thing I have seen people do a lot of is in
> using the voice recognition thing, they actually look at the steering
> wheel. It's like they think they are talking to a real person.

Maybe for you, not being used to it, but not for people that have conducted
business in their cars for years, handsfree, there is no difference to them.

Cheri

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>>>> driving.
>>>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the
>>>>>> steering
>>>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>>>> passengers?
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
>>> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> I disagree, totally.
>
> Studies have shown that you are wrong.

Studies have shown that many studies are wrong.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>>>>>> >>> driving.
>>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>>>>>
>>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>>> passengers?
>>
>> Yes, much more. I posted links as to why. I don't have the links handy
>> now. I can remember screaming at my husband because I felt he was going
>> to rear end someone. He got angry at me because he was talking to
>> someone from work on his Bluetooth. I can't remember now what the
>> conversation was about but numbers. Time or amount or some such thing.
>> He was having to concentrate on the figures and I think he didn't see the
>> person ahead of him slam the brakes on. Which is why when he makes the
>> calls, I ask him to pull over. Another thing I have seen people do a lot
>> of is in using the voice recognition thing, they actually look at the
>> steering wheel. It's like they think they are talking to a real person.
>
> Maybe for you, not being used to it, but not for people that have
> conducted business in their cars for years, handsfree, there is no
> difference to them.

I'd be willing to bet that there is!

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message

>> Maybe for you, not being used to it, but not for people that have
>> conducted business in their cars for years, handsfree, there is no
>> difference to them.
>
> I'd be willing to bet that there is!

I'd be willing to bet there isn't! You have your opinion, I have mine, and
no reason to beat it to death, so that's my last word on it.

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 7:18 AM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:25:54 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I hear complaints that one ought not to use the phone, even hands free -
>>> because it is distracting! What about when you are talking to someone
>>> in
>>> the car? Yet that is not frowned on!
>>
>>
>> There is a difference. If you are talking to someone in the car and
>> the traffic up ahead becomes more complicated you tend (at least I do)
>> to stop talking and concentrate because you know the passenger can see
>> what's happening. However that doesn't apply to a phone call, the
>> person wonders if the connection has dropped, or something.
>>
> Excellent point! My SO only has a cell phone. I refuse to talk to him if
> I know he's driving. Call me when you get to your destination.

Yes! I flipping hate that. Call keeps dropping out. Duh! Quit calling.
If it's really an emergency, pull over somewhere then call.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:09:24 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll join you in the mud ! Who cares whether the people ahead of you
>>>>>>>have two kids, ninety kids, five dogs, three cats. I have started
>>>>>>>to see some pushback stickers now, one the other day indicated no
>>>>>>>kids
>>>>>>>and no desire to have any
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a bit rough !
>>>>
>>>> Very much black humour...
>>>
>>>'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>>
>> Back in the day, abortions were often achieved with wire coat hangers.
>
> OMG I won't ask how(

You didn't know that?

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>> made so hard for so many to get.
>
> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.

Here we have activists, many of them underage. They like to hang out in
front of Planned Parenthood and other places where a girl/woman might get an
abortion. Of course not everyone going into those buildings is going in
there for that. But they still have to endure the disgusting pictures on
their signs. Dead fetuses and stuff. They have been known to try to
physically restrain women attempting to enter the building and they will
harass the staff.

I remember becoming very angry with them when Angela was young. We had to
go pick up my parents and that meant driving past them twice. Little kids
shouldn't have to be exposed to things like that. And one of the protesters
had gotten herself so hysterical and worked up, I thought she might have a
heart attack. She was very angry and even screaming at cars as they went
by.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>
>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>
>>
>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>> Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>>
> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking. Abortion is still
> legal, whether people agree with it or not.

I don't know why she keeps going on about that either. I never even heard
of it prior to her bringing it up. I don't listen or watch those either. I
don't even watch the news on a regular basis. But I do know that it can be
difficult for women to get an abortion.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:48:58 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >
>
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>
> >>>>>> > > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> >
>
> >>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >>>>>> >>>
>
> >>>>>> >>>
>
> >>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>
> >>>>>> driving.
>
> >>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>
> >>>>>> >>
>
> >>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>
> >>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>
> >>>>>> >>
>
> >>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>
> >>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>
> >>>>>> >
>
> >>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>
> >>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>
> >>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>
> >>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>
> >>> passengers?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Cheri
>
> >>>
>
> >> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
>
> >> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>
> >>
>
> >> Jill
>
> >
>
> > I disagree, totally.
>
>
>
> Studies have shown that you are wrong.

Studies, lol. I guess the California legislators haven't read your 'studies' , hahaha. In California it is perfectly legal to use your cell phone while driving as long as you do it hands-free, either with a bluetooth device or speakerphone.

Julie P.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>> >>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>> >>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>> >>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>> >>> made so hard for so many to get.
>> >>
>> >> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>> > Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>> > Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>> >
>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking.
>
> You probably don't even know that the radio station you listen to is
> owned by Clear Channel.
>
>> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>
> R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
> the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
> yourself.
>
The radio stations that I listen to do not have news. Now lemme go look up
Clear Channel. Here's the list.

http://www.radiolineup.com/owners/Clear-Channel/2

So here we have:

KUBE Seattle: Haven't listened to them since the 1980's.

KBKS Tacoma: Never heard of them.

KFBW Vancouver: Never heard of them.

KHHO Tacoma: Sports. Eek! No.

KJR Seattle, both AM and FM: Listened to AM in the late 60's/early 70's.

KKBW Eatonville: Don't recall them. Might have listened to while in the
area. Doubt it.

KPTL Spokane: Too far away.

If I have to listen to news such as having a power outage and being snowed
in, I will put on KVI, AM. They are owned by Fisher Broadcasting. Also
owned by them is KPLZ/Star 101.5 which is one of the stations that I
normally listen to. Also listen to Click/KLCK which is owned by Sandusky
Radio. Movin/KQMV which is owned by Sandusky Radio. Once in a while,
Warm/KRWN by Sandusky Radio.

So... That was a big waste of my time.

*Goes on to do something else more productive*

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 11:44 AM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>>>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>>>>
>>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking. Abortion is still
>>> legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> But can women, especially ones without much cash, find it ?
>>
> That, I couldn't begin to answer. Still, I sincerely doubt most women
> have to resort to what we used to call "back alley butchers". People who
> performed abortions on the sly. Not since it became legal.
>
> It might be harder to find a doctor to perform one, I don't know. If so,
> it's probably due to protests and threats from rabid anti-abortion
> fanatics.
>
> I do know birth *control* methods such as the pill used to be available at
> relatively low (or no) cost at some clinics. In the US, Planned
> Parenthood comes to mind. And hey! condoms have been around forever. They
> don't cost an arm and a leg. It also doesn't put the birth control
> responsibility strictly on the woman.

Birth control isn't always the answer. Some abortions come about from
failed birth control. For instance, the woman didn't realize that her
antibiotic made the pill less effective. But many come about from rape.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/9/2014 8:16 PM, Earl wrote:
>
>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> Some people have jobs that require it and can handle it.
>
>
> What job "requires" you to have it? I know a lot of sales people choose
> to use mobile phones but I've never seen it as a requirement of employment
> to drive and talk. Tests have also shown that most people dont' handle it
> as well as they think they do.

Cab drivers, policemen, perhaps EMTs. But they are not having ongoing
conversations.

"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>>>>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>>>>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>>>>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>>>> Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>>>> Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>>>>
>>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking.
>>
>> You probably don't even know that the radio station you listen to is
>> owned by Clear Channel.
>>
>>> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>>
>> R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
>> the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
>> yourself.
>>
> The radio stations that I listen to do not have news. Now lemme go look
> up Clear Channel. Here's the list.
>
> http://www.radiolineup.com/owners/Clear-Channel/2
>
> So here we have:
>
> KUBE Seattle: Haven't listened to them since the 1980's.
>
> KBKS Tacoma: Never heard of them.
>
> KFBW Vancouver: Never heard of them.
>
> KHHO Tacoma: Sports. Eek! No.
>
> KJR Seattle, both AM and FM: Listened to AM in the late 60's/early 70's.
>
> KKBW Eatonville: Don't recall them. Might have listened to while in the area. Doubt it.
>
> KPTL Spokane: Too far away.
>
> If I have to listen to news such as having a power outage and being
> snowed in, I will put on KVI, AM. They are owned by Fisher Broadcasting.
> Also owned by them is KPLZ/Star 101.5 which is one of the stations that
> I normally listen to. Also listen to Click/KLCK which is owned by
> Sandusky Radio. Movin/KQMV which is owned by Sandusky Radio. Once in a
> while, Warm/KRWN by Sandusky Radio.
>
> So... That was a big waste of my time.
>
> *Goes on to do something else more productive*

It was a big waste of our time, too.
--
jinx the minx

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:09:36 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:24:19 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, sf wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:29:03 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 6/10/2014 10:10 AM, sf wrote:
>>> >>> No kids by choice, depicted by an allusion to coat hanger abortion.
>>> >>> It is reality for some parts of the USA today. Sadly, do it yourself
>>> >>> abortions are becoming more common now that safe abortion has been
>>> >>> made so hard for so many to get.
>>> >>
>>> >> Since when? Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Ignorance of what is happening to reproductive rights occurs when
>>> > Clear Channel dominates the airwaves.
>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us...ures.html?_r=0
>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States
>>> > Are you aware there is voter suppression now too?
>>> >
>>> I've told you many times I don't listen to Clear Channel stations or
>>> whatever you may think is dominating my thinking.
>>
>> You probably don't even know that the radio station you listen to is
>> owned by Clear Channel.
>>
>>> Abortion is still legal, whether people agree with it or not.
>>>
>> R v W might be legal, but that's in name only because restrictions at
>> the state level have severely limited it in 30 states. Educate
>> yourself.
>>
>The radio stations that I listen to do not have news. Now lemme go look up
>Clear Channel. Here's the list.
>
>http://www.radiolineup.com/owners/Clear-Channel/2
>
>So here we have:
>
>KUBE Seattle: Haven't listened to them since the 1980's.
>
>KBKS Tacoma: Never heard of them.
>
>KFBW Vancouver: Never heard of them.
>
>KHHO Tacoma: Sports. Eek! No.
>
>KJR Seattle, both AM and FM: Listened to AM in the late 60's/early 70's.
>
>KKBW Eatonville: Don't recall them. Might have listened to while in the
>area. Doubt it.
>
>KPTL Spokane: Too far away.
>
>If I have to listen to news such as having a power outage and being snowed
>in, I will put on KVI, AM. They are owned by Fisher Broadcasting. Also
>owned by them is KPLZ/Star 101.5 which is one of the stations that I
>normally listen to. Also listen to Click/KLCK which is owned by Sandusky
>Radio. Movin/KQMV which is owned by Sandusky Radio. Once in a while,
>Warm/KRWN by Sandusky Radio.
>
>So... That was a big waste of my time.

So... you know yourself better now.

>*Goes on to do something else more productive*

Notes for tomorrow's paradoxes and contradictions on RFC?

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:57 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:17:57 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:09:24 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll join you in the mud ! Who cares whether the people ahead of you
>>>>>>have two kids, ninety kids, five dogs, three cats. I have started
>>>>>>to see some pushback stickers now, one the other day indicated no kids
>>>>>>and no desire to have any
>>>>>
>>>>>I've seen one with just a couple and a coat hanger...
>>>>
>>>>That's a bit rough !
>>>
>>> Very much black humour...
>>
>>'fraid you will need to explain that one to me
>
> I see lucretiaborgia has done that.

Aye I wonder how many mothers that killed off

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:43:08 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> You said that EVERY new car comes with it. Every car does not come with it!
> So yes, I did prove you wrong. I specifically got a car that did not have
> it because I do not want it and will not use it. Just because *your* cars
> came with it doesn't mean that all cars do.

I can't help that you *opted* out of a common feature. It's probably
there anyway, but not activated.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 6/10/2014 8:53 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> We were in Winco (grocery store) and there was an older woman using her
> Bluetooth all over the store. And not just to ask about groceries. She
> was shouting and quite agitated about a family member. Went on and on
> about how she shouldn't have done this and that and stuff with her
> kids. Then later our paths crossed again and this time she was shouting
> about how some person shouldn't have bought some thing. That's the sort
> of thing that I just don't get!
>
> If I am in a store to buy something for someone, I might call them to
> make sure that I am getting the right thing. But I won't chit chat like
> that. Nobody wants to hear your conversation.

Unless it's for business (or, as you said, "did you want me to get
[something]?") I don't see the point of gabbing on cell phones in
public. Most of the conversations I overhear are completely innane.
"He said what?! No! Really?! Wow!" Come on, people, save the
chit-chat for when you're at home.

There's a big sign on the door of the Exxon Tiger Mart: NO CELL PHONES.
They'll ask you to leave if you're standing around yakking on one.
It's a place of business, not the place to catch up with what's going on
with your BFF.

Jill

On 6/11/2014 1:41 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> Here we have activists, many of them underage. They like to hang out in
> front of Planned Parenthood and other places where a girl/woman might
> get an abortion. Of course not everyone going into those buildings is
> going in there for that. But they still have to endure the disgusting
> pictures on their signs. Dead fetuses and stuff. They have been known
> to try to physically restrain women attempting to enter the building and
> they will harass the staff.
>
> I remember becoming very angry with them when Angela was young. We had
> to go pick up my parents and that meant driving past them twice. Little
> kids shouldn't have to be exposed to things like that. And one of the
> protesters had gotten herself so hysterical and worked up, I thought she
> might have a heart attack. She was very angry and even screaming at
> cars as they went by.

Yeah, those are the rabid pro-life activists. When I was in high school
I went to Planned Parenthood with a friend (IIRC we were 18) so she
could get contraceptives. Those people paint everyone with the same
wide brush. They completely ignore the other health-related services
offered. I guess they also don't understand the meaning of the word
"planned".

Jill <---brought to you by Clear Channel, all rock, all the time

On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>


>> There are differences. Same with the radio. When traffic conditions
>> warrant more attention, you block out the radio and concentrate on
>> driving. Talking with a passenger is similar in that you can easily
>> stop the conversation if traffic is dicey.
>>
>> Talking on the phone takes a bit more of the brain power. Even there,
>> there is a difference between "what's for dinner" and giving tech
>> support to a bomb deactivation. People on the phone are more apt to
>> keep the conversation going.
>>
>> I use my phone very day on the way home from work. Usually, it is on
>> a stretch of road with no cross traffic and modest speed.
>> Conversation is minimal. I don't use it in fast moving rush hour
>> traffic on congested highways.
>
> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use it
> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>
> Cheri

You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.

On 6/11/2014 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
>> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use it
>> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
> not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.
>
Putting this back in a cooking related perspective, many people can cook
multiple things at the same time. Different pots on different burners.
The goal is to have everything ready at about the same time. So,
they're focused on the task at hand.

Throw in a distraction like talking on the phone and ooops! The pot
boiled over! Because they weren't paying attention. Telephones are a
distraction. No one will ever convince me otherwise.

Jill

Cheri wrote:
>
> "Janet Wilder" wrote:
> > The license plate holder on my car says "my other ride is a cruise ship"
>
Hi there to you Janet! Hope you are doing well! :-D

> There ya go!

If I ever put a bumper sticker or anything on my car, it will just
say, "BITE ME!" That pretty much covers everything. heheh

G.

Cheri wrote:
>
> Studies have shown that many studies are wrong.

lol! I like that one.

jmcquown > wrote:
> On 6/11/2014 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
>>> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use it
>>> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
>> not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.
>>
> Putting this back in a cooking related perspective, many people can cook
> multiple things at the same time. Different pots on different burners.
> The goal is to have everything ready at about the same time. So, they're
> focused on the task at hand.
>
> Throw in a distraction like talking on the phone and ooops! The pot
> boiled over! Because they weren't paying attention. Telephones are a
> distraction. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
>
> Jill

People try because they do not want to admit that they are being
irresponsible. I have had cell phone zombies stroll out directly into the
path of my automobile on *many* occasions. I could not imagine riding with
another cell user again - my wife's aunt convinced us to ride with her to a
baptism a few summers ago, and when her cell phone rang she almost put us
in the ditch because she was so distracted by the joyous sound of its ring
and her subsequent struggle to answer it as quickly as possible. After
that event I will no longer allow anybody to drive me anywhere excepting my
wife and my long time friend, both of whom scorn cell zombies.

In the old days I recall observing people reading the paper or a book, and
fixing their makeup as the drove, but it seemed much less frequent to see
such badly distracted zombies compared with modern times.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:50:57 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> Cheri wrote:
> >
> > Studies have shown that many studies are wrong.
>
> lol! I like that one.

Other studies have shown that you can design a study to prove or
disprove anything you want.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:43:08 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> You said that EVERY new car comes with it. Every car does not come with
>> it!
>> So yes, I did prove you wrong. I specifically got a car that did not
>> have
>> it because I do not want it and will not use it. Just because *your*
>> cars
>> came with it doesn't mean that all cars do.
>
> I can't help that you *opted* out of a common feature. It's probably
> there anyway, but not activated.

I didn't opt out. My friend got almost the same thing as mine for her
daughters. It doesn't have Bluetooth either. We were told if we wanted one
with, we would have to buy one with. I specifically wanted a model with as
few bells and whistles possible. I did want AC and a radio. AC does not
necessarily come standard either. Not in this area anyway. You see a lot of
cars without it. Even new ones.

I did not go in and order a car to my specs. This was an emergency
purchase. I had to choose from what they had at their various locations.
Luckily they did have a color that I wanted. I had wanted a red one. My
friend got the red one. It's a hatchback, which I wouldn't have minded.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/10/2014 8:53 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> We were in Winco (grocery store) and there was an older woman using her
>> Bluetooth all over the store. And not just to ask about groceries. She
>> was shouting and quite agitated about a family member. Went on and on
>> about how she shouldn't have done this and that and stuff with her
>> kids. Then later our paths crossed again and this time she was shouting
>> about how some person shouldn't have bought some thing. That's the sort
>> of thing that I just don't get!
>>
>> If I am in a store to buy something for someone, I might call them to
>> make sure that I am getting the right thing. But I won't chit chat like
>> that. Nobody wants to hear your conversation.
>
> Unless it's for business (or, as you said, "did you want me to get
> [something]?") I don't see the point of gabbing on cell phones in public.
> Most of the conversations I overhear are completely innane. "He said
> what?! No! Really?! Wow!" Come on, people, save the chit-chat for when
> you're at home.
>
> There's a big sign on the door of the Exxon Tiger Mart: NO CELL PHONES.
> They'll ask you to leave if you're standing around yakking on one. It's a
> place of business, not the place to catch up with what's going on with
> your BFF.

There is a signs up at the dance studio asking for no cell phone use. They
had to do this after a woman sat there in front of the other moms and kids
and went on to describe in great detail, the wonderful sex she had with this
guy she met on the Internet. The following week she brought the guy in and
also his kids. They bought the kids stuff from the Pizza Hut next door.
The kids were crawling all over the floor while the two of them sat there
smooching. Thankfully that was the last time we ever saw them.

Anyway, people will sit right under the sign and talk on the phone. The
most annoying one was an Asian woman who was speaking some other language
very loudly for two hours! Gah!

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/11/2014 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
>>> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use it
>>> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
>> not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.
>>
> Putting this back in a cooking related perspective, many people can cook
> multiple things at the same time. Different pots on different burners.
> The goal is to have everything ready at about the same time. So, they're
> focused on the task at hand.
>
> Throw in a distraction like talking on the phone and ooops! The pot
> boiled over! Because they weren't paying attention. Telephones are a
> distraction. No one will ever convince me otherwise.

Yes! Someone I know always calls me while I am fixing dinner to find out
what's for dinner. I just hang up. No time to explain.

"Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown > wrote:
>> On 6/11/2014 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
>>>> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use
>>>> it
>>>> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
>>> not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.
>>>
>> Putting this back in a cooking related perspective, many people can cook
>> multiple things at the same time. Different pots on different burners.
>> The goal is to have everything ready at about the same time. So, they're
>> focused on the task at hand.
>>
>> Throw in a distraction like talking on the phone and ooops! The pot
>> boiled over! Because they weren't paying attention. Telephones are a
>> distraction. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
>>
>> Jill
>
> People try because they do not want to admit that they are being
> irresponsible. I have had cell phone zombies stroll out directly into the
> path of my automobile on *many* occasions. I could not imagine riding
> with
> another cell user again - my wife's aunt convinced us to ride with her to
> a
> baptism a few summers ago, and when her cell phone rang she almost put us
> in the ditch because she was so distracted by the joyous sound of its ring
> and her subsequent struggle to answer it as quickly as possible. After
> that event I will no longer allow anybody to drive me anywhere excepting
> my
> wife and my long time friend, both of whom scorn cell zombies.
>
> In the old days I recall observing people reading the paper or a book, and
> fixing their makeup as the drove, but it seemed much less frequent to see
> such badly distracted zombies compared with modern times.

The ones who really get me are those who are walking and talking on the
phone. They don't pay attention either. I have seen them walk into poles,
buildings, fall off sidewalks, almost get hit by cars, etc.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:48:58 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >
>
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> On 6/10/2014 10:20 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:31:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On 6/9/2014 12:45 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>
> >>>>>> > > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> >
>
> >>>>>> >> On 6/9/2014 9:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >>>>>> >>>
>
> >>>>>> >>>
>
> >>>>>> >>> Incidentally it is illegal here to use your cellphone while
>
> >>>>>> driving.
>
> >>>>>> >>> Not that it seems to stop some people.
>
> >>>>>> >>
>
> >>>>>> >> Clearly it's not stopping anyone here, either. Texting seems
>
> >>>>>> >> to have replaced talking, for the most part.
>
> >>>>>> >>
>
> >>>>>> > Not sure why because every new car has bluetooth capability now and
>
> >>>>>> > you can talk hands free.
>
> >>>>>> >
>
> >>>>>> Sure hope it's optional. I can't think of any reason to talk on the
>
> >>>>>> phone, hands-free or not, while driving. It's still a distraction.
>
> >>>>>> Gotta make a call? Pull over. My 2 cents.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> The point is that they don't need to take their hands off the steering
>
> >>>>> wheel if they want to gab.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>> It's still just as dangerous.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I don't think so. Is it any more dangerous than talking to your
>
> >>> passengers?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Cheri
>
> >>>
>
> >> Nope. A passenger (of driving age) provides another set of eyes. The
>
> >> person on the phone (hands free or not) is just a distraction.
>
> >>
>
> >> Jill
>
> >
>
> > I disagree, totally.
>
>
>
> Studies have shown that you are wrong.

Hey there! You haven't answered why you think California says it is okay to talk on your cell phone while driving as long as you use a hands-free device. Can you tell us why you think they allow it if your 'studies' say that it is just as dangerous???

Julie P

"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
> ...
>> jmcquown > wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2014 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2014 10:24 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to disagree, I don't think a hands free phone takes more
>>>>> concentration than conversation with a passenger, but people that use >>>> it
>>>>> that way for business everyday are probably more used to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> You can disagree, but the many studies have show different. People are
>>>> not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think.
>>>>
>>> Putting this back in a cooking related perspective, many people can cook
>>> multiple things at the same time. Different pots on different burners.
>>> The goal is to have everything ready at about the same time. So, they're
>>> focused on the task at hand.
>>>
>>> Throw in a distraction like talking on the phone and ooops! The pot
>>> boiled over! Because they weren't paying attention. Telephones are a
>>> distraction. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> People try because they do not want to admit that they are being
>> irresponsible. I have had cell phone zombies stroll out directly into the
>> path of my automobile on *many* occasions. I could not imagine riding > with
>> another cell user again - my wife's aunt convinced us to ride with her to > a
>> baptism a few summers ago, and when her cell phone rang she almost put us
>> in the ditch because she was so distracted by the joyous sound of its ring
>> and her subsequent struggle to answer it as quickly as possible. After
>> that event I will no longer allow anybody to drive me anywhere excepting > my
>> wife and my long time friend, both of whom scorn cell zombies.
>>
>> In the old days I recall observing people reading the paper or a book, and
>> fixing their makeup as the drove, but it seemed much less frequent to see
>> such badly distracted zombies compared with modern times.
>
> The ones who really get me are those who are walking and talking on the
> phone. They don't pay attention either. I have seen them walk into
> poles, buildings, fall off sidewalks, almost get hit by cars, etc.

What is so damn exciting and urgent that it takes precedence over looking
where you are going?

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:29:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>The most annoying one was an Asian woman who was speaking some other
>language very loudly for two hours! Gah!

"I think it was an Asian gang or something. I saw someone, he looked
Asian and he... he was speaking another language... I think he was...
Asian"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy9Z-Tg6ufU