What do you consider reckless driving?
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CAI think b (driving while reading), c (unless it's talking on a mobile phone only, but dialing it for example), d are the worst of all. DUI might be dangerous, but if you drive slow and pay attention to what you are doing, it's not so bad (unless you're dead drunk, of course). The ones I said take your attention off the road and that is much more dangeroups, in my point-of-view.
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CAWhen I combine a, e, and g I feel pretty reckless.
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
-
When I combine a, e, and g I feel pretty reckless.
Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:
Mark Salsbery wrote:
When I combine a, e, and g I feel pretty reckless.
AND driving a lumber truck. Althoug i think A + F are a nastier combination;P Roswell
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CAAll but f.
-
I think b (driving while reading), c (unless it's talking on a mobile phone only, but dialing it for example), d are the worst of all. DUI might be dangerous, but if you drive slow and pay attention to what you are doing, it's not so bad (unless you're dead drunk, of course). The ones I said take your attention off the road and that is much more dangeroups, in my point-of-view.
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote:
DUI might be dangerous, but if you drive slow and pay attention to what you are doing, it's not so bad
Please let me know if you are ever driving in the UK, so I can take the train.
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
Nothing wrong with F if properly equipped and obeying the traffic rules. e) and G) are marginal. I'd say dangerous, but not reckless. x) - several x-rated activities that might interfere with ones ability to focus on the traffic :rolleyes:
Rob Graham wrote:
x) - several x-rated activities that might interfere with ones ability to focus on the traffic
The only time I've actually said "No"...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
All but f.
Well, I'd say driving a motorcycle while driving a car, is bloody reckless! :-D
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CARoswellNX wrote:
So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own.
A, B, C (except the car itself), D, E (in some circumstances. Sweets, snacks and drinks are okay - a full meal would be nuts), G (but only the intial process of lighting the thing), H (but I'm a bit fuzzy on what you actually mean - A blind person shouldn't be permitted to drive at all), I (and also drowsey after eating too much carbs), and J.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ... "I wouldn't say boo to a goose. I'm not a coward, I just realise that it would be largely pointless." My website
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Nothing wrong with F) if properly equipped and obeying the traffic rules.
Well, i wasn't entirely serious when i threw F) in there, but a lot of California drivers (myself included) do have a deep hatred for motorcyclists.:laugh: One - they cause deadlier accidents than their auto-driving counterparts, which isn't good for those who like us have the minimum of insurance coverage required by law; two - they weave in and out of traffic and get in your blind spot, once again causing accidents; three - they are allowed to drive in the carpool lane by themselves. All three are more apparent in Los Angeles trafic than say, on a country road some place out the Midwest. And of course baking in 5mph trafic feels a whole lot worse when you have someone weaving around the cars in a light breaze on his way to causing the next accident:rolleyes: Roswell
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CASounds to me like you're just jealous of their right to the carpool lane (which they deserve IMO, since they consume far less fuel per passenger than an SUV with 4 passengers).:-D Although they are involved in fatal accidents 4.8 times more frequently than automobiles are (per 100,000 vehicles, not absolute numbers, there are far fewer in absolute numbers), it is not clear who was at fault in the info I could find. Motorcycle Accident Rates, US[^]
-
Rob Graham wrote:
x) - several x-rated activities that might interfere with ones ability to focus on the traffic
The only time I've actually said "No"...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
The only time I've actually said "No"...
I didn't, many years ago, with the missus before we got married.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
RoswellNX wrote:
they cause deadlier accidents than their auto-driving counterparts
Stats certainly don't show that to be the case here in Australia... they are IN more fatal accidents per capita, but not the CAUSE of them. Generally, the cause is some ***hole car driver so caught up in his/her own self-righteous little world that they don't bother to LOOK. I currently drive a 4WD, but have ridden bikes for many years. I think the stupidest thing about bike riding in the US is that helmets are optional, not compulsory like they are here... what's the go with that????
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
I think the stupidest thing about bike riding in the US is that helmets are optional, not compulsory like they are here... what's the go with that????
stupid bikers have managed to lobby too many of our state legislatures. MY views on the subject are: more clorox in the gene pool, and we need the supply of spare parts it brings. If I was dictator wearing seatbelts would also be optional for adults as well, but anyone who did that or skipped the helmet and was injured beyond 'survive without medical assistance' would be automatically sent to the spare parts bin for salvage.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
RoswellNX wrote:
So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own.
A, B, C (except the car itself), D, E (in some circumstances. Sweets, snacks and drinks are okay - a full meal would be nuts), G (but only the intial process of lighting the thing), H (but I'm a bit fuzzy on what you actually mean - A blind person shouldn't be permitted to drive at all), I (and also drowsey after eating too much carbs), and J.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ... "I wouldn't say boo to a goose. I'm not a coward, I just realise that it would be largely pointless." My website
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
H (but I'm a bit fuzzy on what you actually mean - A blind person shouldn't be permitted to drive at all),
With sufficiently poor eyesight it's possible to be 20/20 with glasses but legally blind without.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CADriving in the Virgin Islands. You sit on the left hand side of the car and drive on the left hand side of the road.
-
We've had a discussion here about reckless driving a while back, although i don't remember what the story was, i though it's best to keep it here rather than split it off into the lounge. So what do you consider reckless driving? a) Driving under the influence. b) Driving while reading. c) Driving while operating an electronic device (if so, please elaborate). d) Driving while changing clothes/applying makeup. e) Driving while eating/drinking. f) Driving a motorcycle. g) Driving while smoking h) Driving without proper prescription glasses while legally blind. i) Driving while impaired by lack of sleep j) Driving while turned around and dealing with something that's in the back seat. x) Suggest your own. I'd pesonally say all of the above, except snacking and smoking shouldn't be an issue. Roswell:laugh:
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CAA,b,d,h,I:)
God Bless, Jason
Paul Conrad wrote:
Chuck Norris keeps the hamsters going whenever Chris is gone on vacation. Just stares them down and they keep the servers going
-
RoswellNX wrote:
they cause deadlier accidents than their auto-driving counterparts
Stats certainly don't show that to be the case here in Australia... they are IN more fatal accidents per capita, but not the CAUSE of them. Generally, the cause is some ***hole car driver so caught up in his/her own self-righteous little world that they don't bother to LOOK. I currently drive a 4WD, but have ridden bikes for many years. I think the stupidest thing about bike riding in the US is that helmets are optional, not compulsory like they are here... what's the go with that????
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
I agree with you about the stupidity of the "no helmet required" laws here in the US. They should have added the following at the end of the legislation: "If you choose not to wear a helmet, then you will be last in line at the ER when you have a head injury from an accident". Seems fair to me --- there are consequences for your actions. Why should the public at large now have to support you for the rest of your vegetable-like existence because of their own stupidity????
John P.
-
RoswellNX wrote:
they cause deadlier accidents than their auto-driving counterparts
Stats certainly don't show that to be the case here in Australia... they are IN more fatal accidents per capita, but not the CAUSE of them. Generally, the cause is some ***hole car driver so caught up in his/her own self-righteous little world that they don't bother to LOOK. I currently drive a 4WD, but have ridden bikes for many years. I think the stupidest thing about bike riding in the US is that helmets are optional, not compulsory like they are here... what's the go with that????
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
I think it's stupid to have seatbelts be mandatory, but not helmets. On the other hand, i don't think wearing seatbelts is a matter for law to take up. I'm only harming myself. If the insurance company wants to adjust rates because I'm found not wearing a seatbelt or helmet; however, I'm good with that.
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart -
I think it's stupid to have seatbelts be mandatory, but not helmets. On the other hand, i don't think wearing seatbelts is a matter for law to take up. I'm only harming myself. If the insurance company wants to adjust rates because I'm found not wearing a seatbelt or helmet; however, I'm good with that.
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peartwhen you maim yourself more expensively than your insurance covers, and lack the personal assets to cover the remainder of the bill the rest of the public ends up paying the tab. Indirectly in your costs being added onto our own hospital bills and directly when the govt picks up your nursing home bill.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Sounds to me like you're just jealous of their right to the carpool lane (which they deserve IMO, since they consume far less fuel per passenger than an SUV with 4 passengers).:-D Although they are involved in fatal accidents 4.8 times more frequently than automobiles are (per 100,000 vehicles, not absolute numbers, there are far fewer in absolute numbers), it is not clear who was at fault in the info I could find. Motorcycle Accident Rates, US[^]
Rob Graham wrote:
Sounds to me like you're just jealous of their right to the carpool lane
No, my complaint is that they enter and leave the lane with no regard to the double yellow line. When you get into the carpool lane, it's more often than not much safer than the other three lanes to its right, and you expect that no maniac will be weaving around you car, or trying to cut in front of you. You can take a moment to look at the map or return the call you just missed, something you otherwise won't do. Then you can start paying attention again when the dotted line gets near, which i'd say comes up every mile or two. But when you add bikers to the equation, the picture changes completely as it adds another "lane" of traffic to the same physical lane. Now you have a biker trying to overtake you from behind, and then going too slow in front of you as he's scratching the seat of his pants. Of course, you have to pay attention during more congestion-prone hours, but when the road is realtively free all you have to do is coast when you see another car too close in front or brake when it's getting much too close because of an accident ahead, because 98% of drivers respect the double yellow line. There should be no bikes in the carpool lane, because there's no passing/overtaking the car in front of you, unless you come out on the leftmost of the regular lanes and then manage to get in before the dotted line ends, but the bikers of course are notorious for weaving in and around, no matter the situation.
Rob Graham wrote:
there are far fewer in absolute numbers
beause far fewer people are atually stupid enough to ride a motorcycle in dangerous situations, and the bike isn't their daily driver Roswell:)
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA