RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Graham Watson Screen Savers...(37 posts)

Graham Watson Screen Savers...DINOSAUR
Jun 25, 2001 10:41 PM
webshots.com now has 34 photos by Graham Watson that can be downloaded to screen savers. Click on "Community" at top of page, then "Sports", Then "Bicycling", scroll down to "Road Action" and there you go. There are also others of "Tour de France 2000", mostly of L. Armstrong.
cool...but the problem isColnagoFE
Jun 26, 2001 8:19 AM
they seem to be low res...prolly look like crap when enlarged. i imagine to prevent piracy of his images.
Yeah, they are kind of fuzzy, oh well NMDINOSAUR
Jun 26, 2001 9:53 AM
NM
cool...but the problem isbadabill
Jun 26, 2001 10:27 AM
I used the one of Lance with the American flag as wallpaper, a bit low res but not bad.
Speaking of banzelig1
Jun 26, 2001 6:21 AM
We've seen how well it works in the UK. NOT! How many times have we seen the fag in one hand and mobile in the other. Gee, that leaves the steering wheel and shift lever unattended.
This bill misses the point entirely.seth1
Jun 26, 2001 6:49 AM
What motorist really has both hands on the wheel 100% of the time anyway. I once saw (or didn't see) a person driving down a highway (albiet empty highway) with his/her seat reclined all the way back and was driving with his/her feet!!!
I once saw a motorist (in a Suburban Assault Vehicle, obviously) reading a paper, drinking coffee and smoking a cigarette.
How the heck is this law going to be enforced to any effective degree? A headset is not going to bring a motorists attention back to the roadway.
Here's a good test, try paying attention to a television program and having a meaningful conversation on the telephone. But I'm sure I'm preaching to the chior here.
This bill misses the point entirely.David Feldman
Jun 26, 2001 9:26 AM
Listen here, children. The real point is the undertrained, undertaxed, underregulated American motorist. With the potential for real harm that can be done by misusing an automobile, driving belongs governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where there are reduced legal and civil rights, instead of by the US Constitution.
I'm not a police-stater about other things; the 2nd Amendment doesn't bother me, drug laws and censorship do, etc., but it's infuriating to see the current state of near-anarchy on the road and realize that nobody seems to have the guts to take it on. We cannot get $5.00/gallon gas too soon!
Unfortunately the oil and motor-vehicle industries ....seth1
Jun 26, 2001 9:56 AM
have the military and national defense industries killing for their own interests and all the politicians in their back pocket.
And unfortunately only the poor people will suffer from $5.00 gasoline. If someone can afford a $65,000 suburban assault vehicle they sure will be able to afford the $5.00 gas
This bill misses the point entirely.nutmegger
Jun 26, 2001 6:40 PM
Hey David, I gotta disagree about the UCMJ. Military justice (not an oxymoron) actually offers the accused as many rights and probably more than in civil society (possibly an oxymoron these days). Although I'm not a big F. Lee Bailey fan, he is a creditable source as a defense attorney and he's said as much in public interviews.
Yeah, but now they have ...seth1
Jun 26, 2001 10:05 AM
televisions and a vcr for the kiddies in the back seat, so they can numb and stunt thier developing brains with Disney and Teletubbies. Has anyone seen the commercial where the family is driving thru NYC and the kids are in the back looking comatose? Then the father whips out a new video and they go as berzerk as a teenager on Ritalin? American automobile culture is DISGUSTING!!!!
And I also forgot about the eating and the applying makeup and the oral sex.
Yeah, but now they have ...David Feldman
Jun 26, 2001 2:35 PM
Oh, yeah, and the time a couple of years ago that my wife saw a guy with a LAPTOP propped up on his steering wheel on I-205 near Portland International Airport. I offer this idea with no humor or irony intended: My area has a large, recently arrived Russian community.
All local police agencies should be recruiting, looking for ex-KGB to serve specifically as traffic cops. I mean it--the cats who used to torture political prisoners in the basement of Lubyanka ought to be enforcing the laws of the road on our half-human Northwestern rednecks.
okay ban fags in the car too.JoeCamel
Jun 26, 2001 8:31 AM
(cigarettes-yankee boys) who knows how many cyclists have been run over by a smoker looking for that dropped lit butt--or rummaging through the litter seeking a nicotene fix.
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storyG
Jun 26, 2001 7:00 AM
Another bad idea by lawmakers. Let's create a problem that doesn't exist and take a position that has no basis in factual information and data. Then we will make a law to solve the nonexistant problem which will be nearly impossible to enforce. My state is considering the same type of legislation. I am hoping that logic and intelligence will enter this debate, but I am not holding my breath. Our state legislature does not have a good track record with that sort of thing.
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storyDavid Feldman
Jun 26, 2001 9:29 AM
If logic and intelligence guided motoring law, we'd have a full-bore Stalinist police state for MOTOR vehicle use. Cyclists and pedestrians not having the same potential for harm, human-powered travellers should be allowed full constitutional, civil rights. Driving is too f%$#ing dangerous for the excess of freedoms and rights that are currently allowed motorists.
This Law Is a Rusesidley
Jun 26, 2001 10:00 AM
Keep in mind that the NY State Legislature has passed something like 3 or 4 bills this year (I'm exagerating a little) one of which was an official condolence for 3 firemen who died fighting a fire on fathers day -- a real controversial piece of legislation.

It is widely asserted that the cell-phone ban is a ruse to detract from the fact that the NY house has failed to pass a timely budget for a 17th consecutive year.

As an attorney and NY State resident, I think the bill is completely preposterous.
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storyG
Jun 26, 2001 1:39 PM
Despite my strong disagreement with your point of view, you have swerved into a valid point. Under most Motor Vehicle Codes, driving and having a license is a priviledge and not a right therefore probably does not fall under strict review under the US Constitution. Personally, I see nothing unconstitutional about banning cell phones. It is, however, not a leading cause of accidents and falls behind such things as eating and drinking in the car as causes of accidents. As a parent, I would say that my two-year old is more of a distraction to me in the car and therefore more likely to be a cause of an accident. So what is the answer-ban children under 10 from riding in vehicles? Banning cell phones is simply a solution in search of a problem.
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storynutmegger
Jun 26, 2001 6:58 PM
Eating and drinking are big causes for accidents, huh? OK everybody, lets get rid of those bottle cages and don't even think about that Clif bar in your jersey pocket. Cell phones in cars are a problem and they do cause accidents, as do a lot of other factors. They divert the drivers attention from the road. Common sense dictates this and everyone in their gut knows it's true. Problem is, we're so wedded to our own conveniences we're unwilling to give them up. We also overestimate our own abilities as drivers. Anyone here ever fessed up to being a lousy driver?
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storyG
Jun 27, 2001 6:49 AM
Don't believe me, eh? I urge you to examine accident data in your own state. A study here in my own state verified that eating and drinking in a motor vehicle is more likely to cause an accident than cell phone usage, and in fact does so. But why let a small thing like facts get in the way of a noble cause.
re: NY bans mobile phones while driving - link to storynutmegger
Jun 27, 2001 8:30 AM
Hey G, I'd like to see that study. Can you send me a link to where I could see it or maybe the agency and state that did the study. I always like to have the facts to support my arguments. My hunch is that in terms of raw numbers eating and drinking do cause more accidents, no argument, but I'm skeptical that those factors are more likely to cause an accident simply because 99% us of eat and drink in the car. Of the population of cell phone users, much smaller than the population of licensed drivers, what percentage of their accidents are attributable to cell phone use?
Would this mean...Cima Coppi
Jun 26, 2001 7:55 AM
Cyclists can't ride and talk on their cell phones at the same time??? Just kidding actually; I would never do such a thing, nor advocate it.

This is certainly not the end-all solution to dangerous driving habits, but it has to start somewhere. I think it was good to post this message and support it because it certainly affects us cyclists. Most drivers don't know how to share the road with us, and drivers who talk on their cell phones and drive are that much more oblivious to cyclists on the road, putting us more in danger.

I believe one of the fundamental issues with drivers and driving in the States is the ease at which we are allowed to do so. We go through very minimal training and take a very simple exam once in order to be granted our drivers license. After that, a simple eye exam is the only rigor we all get to renew the privilege. Drivers are typically not reminded of the laws of driving unless one is stopped for a violation.

If the above was better controlled by a responsible government (good luck finding one), us cyclists would have less to fear from drivers, and also maybe the cell phone issue would not be such a hot topic.

I don't really know, but it is my 0.02 lira's worth. Any other thoughts?
I'll weigh in.Lazy
Jun 26, 2001 12:22 PM
I agree with just about everything said so far. American drivers (as a whole)are definitely not paying attention to what they are doing while driving. In fact, there was a piece on "Dateline NBC" ( http://www.msnbc.com/news/588716.asp#BODY )last week about distracted drivers. They did a pretty good test and most people failed it miserably.

My thoughts on the new NY law are that it's focus is a little off. As others have mentioned, I don't see the difference between creaming someone because you were distracted by your cell phone or creaming somebody because you were reading the paper. All though difficult, if not impossible, to enforce I think it would be more effective to have a law that would make it an offense to have an accident caused by in-car distraction. In order for it to be a useful statute, the penalties would have to be severe, otherwise people would ignore it. Singling out cell phones seems counterproductive.

As a side note, go to Paris, Rome, or Cairo (especially). You'll feel lucky to have to deal with American drivers when you get back.

My $.02
Just don't ban elec. shavers!blb
Jun 26, 2001 1:48 PM
I shave every day going to work, it saves me a good 10 minutes!
loss of freedomsDog
Jun 26, 2001 3:30 PM
No matter the legitimate end, losses of personal freedoms are very discouraging. Are we headed to a totalitarian, hyper-regulated, fascist state? I hope not.

Free people should be careful and be held responsible for their actions. What a concept.

Doug
Here, Here!!! Bully!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Live Steam
Jun 26, 2001 3:49 PM
Pretty soon they will legislate that pickin' your nose is dangerous while driving. Are we that irresponsible and stupid that we need the Government to think for us every waking moment of our lives? Our Forefathers came here to avoid a totalitarian monarchy and we are relinquishing all of the rights that were hard fought, because the mainstream media wants us to believe that we do not know what is best for us. Self control and consideration of others is severely lacking in our society, as far as I am concerned. Why doesn't the government and Media preach these virtues rather that simply telling us what we can and cannot do?
Here, Here!!! Bully!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mike mcmahon
Jun 26, 2001 4:04 PM
"Are we that irresponsible and stupid that we need the Government to think for us every waking moment of our lives?" You seem to think not, yet you go on to state: "Self control and consideration of others is severely lacking in our society, as far as I am concerned. Why doesn't the government and Media preach these virtues rather that simply telling us what we can and cannot do?" If we are responsible and intelligent, why do we need the government and the media to preach the virtues of self control and consideration of others? In other words, shouldn't these be inherent traits that don't have to be reinforced through reminders from government officials and talking heads on TV?

Based on the number of people I see talking on cell phones and weaving in lanes, changing lanes without signaling, attempting to steer and shift with one hand, and trying to turn gargantuan SUVs with one hand, I have no problem with a law that makes cell phone use illegal while driving. Do you support drinking and driving? Telling us we can't drink while driving infringes on our freedom doesn't it?

If my wife and kids are safer on the road because someone is required to use a $15 earpiece rather than trying to drive with one hand, I have no problem with this restriction on the driving PRIVILEGE. If I'm less likely to be run down by someone who loses control in front of me while trying to negotiate a tricky left-hand turn with one hand, I'm all for this restriction on the driving PRIVILEGE. In other words, driving is not a right. It is a privilege that can be taken away or restricted. If a minor restriction on that privilege increases the likelihood that we all make it home to our families after a long bike ride, we and our families are the beneficiaries.
Here, Here!!! Bully!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Live Steam
Jun 26, 2001 4:25 PM
Unfortunately these are not inherent traits. They are learned and understood by reasonable people. We have for so long, bee told through marketing campaigns, to be different and free spirited. Most people think this is license to trample on others. I see many of my friends with children tune their kids out when they are being total lunatics. They are all good people, but I think it is a combination of factors that allows them to let their kids run rampant. Less and less time for themselves because they have to get the kid to soccer practice, then to karate then to dance class, yadda, yadda yadda. They simply don't have enough time for all of this and when they get in a setting where they think they don't have to really worry about the kid doing something terrible, they just tune the kid out. The kid then learns that it is OK to run rampant and not to respect others. This trend trickles down to other stuff like cell phone use and lack of consideration for others around you. We are raising a new generation of these kids. I have a friend that will not discipline his kid in public no matter what the kid does because he doesn't want the kid to lack self confidence later on in life. What's that about? Beside, do you really think that requiring a hands free phone with an earpiece will make a difference? What happens when the earpiece falls out and the driver is distracted when they go to retrieve it? Discipline and consideration should be taught at home and no silly law is going to change anything. People still drink and drive and kill other people. Don't they?
Here, Here!!! Bully!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mike mcmahon
Jun 26, 2001 4:45 PM
I agree with much of what you have to say about the way kids are raised these days and about personal responsibility. I also agree that people are generally less considerate of others than they used to be (boy, am I starting to sound old). However, until we recapture that spirit of respect for others, I will support a law that makes our roads safer. And yes, based on my personal experience, I believe that the law will help. It's not perfect, but it will help. I have an earpiece for my cell phone, but it stopped working about a month ago. I haven't been using the phone in the car since then because I feel like I'm more dangerous behind the wheel with a cell phone in one hand. When I drive with an earpiece, I'm even more attentive to what's going on around me than I would normally be, knowing that conversations tend to be distracting. As I mentioned in the previous message, most of what I see that is dangerous appears to be directly related to operating a vehicle with one hand and not related to a conversation. Finally, you're right that people still drink and drive. However, the risk of jail time certainly deters many people from driving. Drunk driving used to be something of a joke. Only when enforcement and punishment were increased did many people get the message that driving while drunk was not acceptable. Obviously, laws don't stop all bad conduct or the criminal courts would be shut down. The risk of winding up in court will be enough to keep most people law-abiding.
Well, let's hope so>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Live Steam
Jun 26, 2001 5:21 PM
However, I think this is a little different than the drinking law. Those that are careless and lose that lack the consideration for others that we agree needs to be recaptured, will simply ignore it and or try to circumvent it.

Most of these types of legislative efforts seem to be politically motivated band-aid tactics. I think they primarily serve to further fill the coffers of the local government that enacted them. It is like the NYC law requiring all boilers in commercial buildings to be inspected annually. I am talking about "ALL" boilers. I own a few commercial pieces and they have small, I mean small boilers for the heating system. These all have to be inspected to protect the public from having them blow up. I inquired as to how many accidents occurred of this type in NYC prior to the law and found that the occurrence was almost non existent. It cost me $100 per boiler each year. There are a lot of these units in NYC as I am sure there are in most cold weather parts of the country. That's a lot of dough for the City.
Parking metersmike mcmahon
Jun 26, 2001 5:36 PM
I agree government gets a bit overzealous when it comes to revenue generation. Like the way many cities make it illegal for a stranger to put money in a parking meter. Now that the cell phone proposal is becoming law, let's all hope for the best. Thanks for the civilized discussion.
Just curious...(ACE)
Jun 27, 2001 12:54 AM
Where is it established that driving (or riding for that matter)is a privilege and not a right? And where do we stop in trying to control the behavior of a "Free People"? Is it at your door or mine? Almost any action while driving is potentially distracting, why is one deemed to be illegal while others are acceptable?
Just curious...mike mcmahon
Jun 27, 2001 11:12 AM
Here's someone else's research:

http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html

I haven't read it thoroughly and am not vouching for its accuracy. However, I think you'll see that state and federal courts have agreed that driving is not a fundamental right but a privilege.

Even "rights" can be restricted when the exercise of those rights interferes with the safety or freedom of others. To use what has become a cliche, you have a free speech right but no freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater. We have the right to free speech, but we don't have carte blanche to exercise that right by standing in the middle of a crowded freeway at rush hour railing about the government.

I agree that other things are distracting, but let's worry about them when every third or fourth person on the road is doing them. Where I live, driving while on the phone has become epidemic. You can make a "slippery slope" argument on almost any law, but I have a hard time seeing how people's basic freedoms are infringed when they're required to use a hands-free system to talk on the phone in a car.
Hey! is this the same guy. . .9WorCP
Jun 26, 2001 6:44 PM
who thought we needed some sort of censor on this board? Doug, we love ya, but "personal freedom?" Let's not speak up only when it suits us. Otherwise, I mostly agree, however, are we prosecuting people for being negligent in this manner, or any other, while operating a vehicle or not? God knows the smokers need a minding if the phone people do. Driving is a privilege not a right.
yup, same guy. . .Dog
Jun 26, 2001 10:15 PM
Can't really compare this board and driving on a highway.

Highways are public facilities, for one, and necessary for a free society. This board is a private domain, and the owners merely permit us to post here.

If you screw up on a highway, there may be serious consequences, loss of freedoms, money, etc., as punishment and compensation. You screw up here, not much will happen. The owners could try to ban your IP, but that's about it. So, the minimal "consequence" possible is a bit of editing, that's all. Sort of like if you were a guest in someone's house. You get out of line and they can ask you to leave or change your behavior. Same thing.

I get your point, though. However, I'm not really advocating that you can't say anything you want here, just do so in a decent manner. Hey, if the owners don't agree, that's up to them.

Doug
Agree with MikeBrianU
Jun 26, 2001 9:35 PM
This issue always stirs the pot. Ok let me get this straight. Some people actually think it is a their right to slow and speed up for no apparent reason, drift in and out of their lane, display obvious lack of situational awareness around their vehicle and make abrupt lane changes without signaling? Ten years ago, these actions would have gotten you a sobriety test. Sure, there are all the other dumb things people do that distracts them while driving, but I do not see them on nearly a daily basis while commuting back and forth to work. You can thank all the irresponsible cell phone users for these new laws. It was and still is a problem that needs fixed. Like someone else pointed out, driving really is a priviledge not a right.
A modest proposalnutmegger
Jun 26, 2001 7:03 PM
Perhaps the solution need not be a new law but enforcement of those already on the books. Most states have motor vehicle statutes relating to driving while distracted.
Thank you !!!!! >>>>>>>>nmLive Steam
Jun 26, 2001 7:29 PM
Ever try RIDING on NYC streets? I do, all the time...boy nigel
Jun 27, 2001 8:12 AM
...and I feel that it's a just and worthy law. Is any law perfect? No. I've seen more and more drivers in (c)rush-hour traffic in NYC having animated conversations while behind the wheel. They're smiling and laughing, and clearly aren't paying full attention to the road and cars around them. Have I seen any accidents because of phone use? No, but considering that I'm usually passing cars, I likely wouldn't see such an "accident."

In the past year, I've noticed--with increasing hostility--that people can't even WALK straight and at a normal pace on the SIDEWALK while using a cell phone. I walk pretty quickly, and it seems that whenever I'm "stuck" behind someone or a group of people while strolling around the avenues, a good amount of time it's because of a "cell-phone traffic jam," as I call them. Someone--please pardon me, ladies and gents, but it's almost always a female ("Oh yeah, Heather, sure, I'll be there! 8:00? Great! Can I bring Ryan? Oh, that'll be FUN!!"--no exaggeration here, I've heard this type of thing a thousand times). They literally weave back and forth about two to three feet while they're walking on the sidewalk, STOPPING to say "Hold on, okay? I've got another call coming in" and hit the "flash" button, causing people to bump into them from behind on busy streets. These same people--who may be poor drivers to begin with--are behind the wheels of potentially life-taking automobiles with their phones. They can't even WALK straight while talking! Navigating the bumps/ruts/cars/cyclists/bladers/scooters/pedestrians/delivery guys of New York City must be out of the question. I'm hyper-alert when I'm riding in the streets, and super-careful, but I'm beginning to think that maybe I should take alternate (out-of-the-way) routes during certain times of the day.

The ban's a GREAT thing, in my opinion. As Mike said earlier, driving is a PRIVILEGE, NOT a right. You have to EARN the privilege, and it can be legally taken away from you. People abuse their privileges, confusing them with rights.

Society's gotten so bored and understimulated (even with all the gadgetry available) that they can't walk around town without talking to someone and having a meaningless, idle, and unnecessary chat to fill up their time. Disgusting, and pathetic.

I feel better now. When you're ON New York streets, you really see how serious the cell-phone situation is.

Peace,
Nigel