On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:25:54 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>"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.

There's that special combination of ignorance and arrogance I've come
to expect from you. What a ridiculous statement.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:02:15 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
>"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

Many. Home abortions still happen, of course.

On 6/10/2014 8:57 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> 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
>
> Jill

Yeah, and they look at you like WTF do you want? lol

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On 6/11/2014 8:20 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> 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

What's worse is when they're using speakerphone and you can hear the
whole conversation. I was in a store one time and this guy was talking
to a someone using speakerphone and the person on the other end was
using the f bomb every other word. It was obnoxious. And loud.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

sf wrote:
>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.

A study is nothing scientific, study is synonymous with opinion.

On 2014-06-11 6:22 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>>
>> Other studies have shown that you can design a study to prove or
>> disprove anything you want.
>
> A study is nothing scientific, study is synonymous with opinion.
>


That is a rather simplistic approach. It might be more accurate to say
that a study is something that has been funded by some organization to
prove that what they are saying is true. No one pays thousands, perhaps
millions to prove<?> something unless they stand to gain from it. We
cannot forget that it costs money to do research, and no one and no
company is going to spend that kind of money if it means they are going
to lose from it.


In previous posts I referred to a book about the drug business and how
they hire writers to ghost write articles about the research and then
get some respected doctor to put his name on it.

On 6/11/2014 6:06 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> 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
>
> What's worse is when they're using speakerphone and you can hear the
> whole conversation. I was in a store one time and this guy was talking
> to a someone using speakerphone and the person on the other end was
> using the f bomb every other word. It was obnoxious. And loud.

Speaker phones are just as bad on landlines as they are on cell phones.
I don't care how good some people think the technology they bought is,
I can always tell when someone is using the speaker function. They're
usually yelling, too.

Jill

On 6/11/2014 4:31 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> 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.

We know who is calling to find out what is for dinner. The
dinner-on-demand-man. <sigh>

Jill

"Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
...
> "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?

They're not paying attention. But now that I think about it, they are
likely texting rather than talking.

"Julie Nilsen" > wrote in message
...
> 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???
>
I no longer live in CA so can't say anything about their laws there. But I
have seen on TV that some states are going to ban even hands free while
driving.

When I was a kid, we had no seatbelts in the back seats of cars. And once
they did get seatbelts, lots of people didn't use them. It wasn't a law to
use them. Babies often traveled seated in their mom's lap or in a baby bed
that wasn't secured in any way. I can remember many road trips where I was
told to curl up on the floor or in the seat and take a nap. Doesn't mean it
was safe. That's just what people did.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/11/2014 6:06 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> What's worse is when they're using speakerphone and you can hear the
>> whole conversation. I was in a store one time and this guy was talking
>> to a someone using speakerphone and the person on the other end was
>> using the f bomb every other word. It was obnoxious. And loud.
>
> Speaker phones are just as bad on landlines as they are on cell phones. I
> don't care how good some people think the technology they bought is, I can
> always tell when someone is using the speaker function. They're usually
> yelling, too.

I only use the speaker phone when I have to listen to a lot of things and
select options. It's easier for me to do that than to have to keep taking
the phone from my ear and putting it back. I don't like to talk to people
using it and I hate it when they use it to talk to me.

I wasn't talking about the seatbelt laws nor the fact that you no longer live in California.

I am asking you about the 'studies' that you are calling up to tell other people on here that they are wrong.

I am asking you why you 'think' that hands-free cell phone talking is just as/more dangerous than using the phone itself. You state that 'studies' prove everyone wrong. So, I am wondering where those studies were when California lawmakers decided to make it legal to talk hands-free.

Please answer to the prompt.

Nellie (used to be JulieP)

"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
I wasn't talking about the seatbelt laws nor the fact that you no longer
live in California.

I am asking you about the 'studies' that you are calling up to tell other
people on here that they are wrong.

I am asking you why you 'think' that hands-free cell phone talking is just
as/more dangerous than using the phone itself. You state that 'studies'
prove everyone wrong. So, I am wondering where those studies were when
California lawmakers decided to make it legal to talk hands-free.

Please answer to the prompt.

Nellie (used to be JulieP)

---
I am not the one who said that the studies were wrong. The studies I cited
were to prove that using the phone hands free is still distracting. Maybe
not *as* distracting as holding the phone but they still are.

How in the heck should I know what CA did or where those studies were? I
can't answer.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Julie Nilsen
> wrote:

>
> 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???

I live in California. It's not against the law (so far) to talk hands
free although it has been proven to be a distraction. Smoking in
public was also allowed... until it wasn't. <shrug>

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Nellie
> wrote:

> Nellie (used to be JulieP)

As in "Nervous" Nellie? Love it!

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:25:54 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "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.

Going bare bones is still an opt out.

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:06:59 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> What's worse is when they're using speakerphone and you can hear the
> whole conversation. I was in a store one time and this guy was talking
> to a someone using speakerphone and the person on the other end was
> using the f bomb every other word. It was obnoxious. And loud.


LOL! I've never experienced that.

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

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:24:15 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> I wasn't talking about the seatbelt laws nor the fact that you no longer
>
> live in California.
>
>
>
> I am asking you about the 'studies' that you are calling up to tell other
>
> people on here that they are wrong.
>
>
>
> I am asking you why you 'think' that hands-free cell phone talking is just
>
> as/more dangerous than using the phone itself. You state that 'studies'
>
> prove everyone wrong. So, I am wondering where those studies were when
>
> California lawmakers decided to make it legal to talk hands-free.
>
>
>
> Please answer to the prompt.
>
>
>
> Nellie (used to be JulieP)
>
>
>
> ---
>
> I am not the one who said that the studies were wrong. The studies I cited
>
> were to prove that using the phone hands free is still distracting. Maybe
>
> not *as* distracting as holding the phone but they still are.
>
>
>
> How in the heck should I know what CA did or where those studies were? I
>
> can't answer.

No, of course you can't, but you sure could tell everyone that they were 'WRONG' based on your supposed 'studies'.

Now that you are called on it, you get all huffy. Nice, "Ms. I qualify for Mensa"

BTW, sf and Gary are right, do your daughter a favor and buy your daughter a lap top.

Nellie

On 6/11/2014 10:15 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> When I was a kid, we had no seatbelts in the back seats of cars. And
> once they did get seatbelts, lots of people didn't use them. It wasn't
> a law to use them. Babies often traveled seated in their mom's lap or
> in a baby bed that wasn't secured in any way. I can remember many road
> trips where I was told to curl up on the floor or in the seat and take a
> nap. Doesn't mean it was safe. That's just what people did.

In the 1960's we drove from California to Virginia in a station wagon.
For the most part my brothers and I rode in the very back of the
"wagon". (Our luggage was strapped to a rack on top of the vehicle).
We weren't restrained in any way. Our parents probably weren't wearing
their (lap-only) seat belts, either.

Jill

On 6/12/2014 12:40 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Julie Nilsen
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> 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???
>
> I live in California. It's not against the law (so far) to talk hands
> free although it has been proven to be a distraction. Smoking in
> public was also allowed... until it wasn't. <shrug>

It would be impossible to enforce, if nothing else.

Surely people don't think that having a phone in one hand is
the distraction making people drive through red lights and
all the other stuff we see? They'd ban stick shifts, too, if
that was the problem.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>sf wrote:
>>Julie Nilsen wrote:
>>>
>>> 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???
>>
>> I live in California. It's not against the law (so far) to talk hands
>> free although it has been proven to be a distraction. Smoking in
>> public was also allowed... until it wasn't. <shrug>
>
>It would be impossible to enforce, if nothing else.
>Surely people don't think that having a phone in one hand is
>the distraction making people drive through red lights and
>all the other stuff we see?

Conversing, whether via phone or with passengers, s one of the most
common reasons people drive through stop signs and red lights. Smoking
requires zero consious thought, no more than chewing gum.

>They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.

Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
You obviously don't drive stick. It took me a long time getting used
to an automatic transmission... there are still occasions when I catch
myself going for the clutch to downshift. I'm driving automatic only
24 years, I learned with stick and drove only stick for more than 30
years.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:02:15 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:35 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> 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
>
> Many. Home abortions still happen, of course.

Oh Fortunately for me, I have been lucky enough never to have to venture
into such

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

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>sf wrote:
>>>Julie Nilsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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???
>>>
>>> I live in California. It's not against the law (so far) to talk hands
>>> free although it has been proven to be a distraction. Smoking in
>>> public was also allowed... until it wasn't. <shrug>
>>
>>It would be impossible to enforce, if nothing else.
>>Surely people don't think that having a phone in one hand is
>>the distraction making people drive through red lights and
>>all the other stuff we see?
>
> Conversing, whether via phone or with passengers, s one of the most
> common reasons people drive through stop signs and red lights. Smoking
> requires zero consious thought, no more than chewing gum.
>
>>They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>
> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
> You obviously don't drive stick. It took me a long time getting used
> to an automatic transmission... there are still occasions when I catch
> myself going for the clutch to downshift. I'm driving automatic only
> 24 years, I learned with stick and drove only stick for more than 30
> years.

I have two cars now, one with stick and one auto. One never forgets. If
someone here passes a test with an auto, they have to take another test for
stick gears. Having taken a test for a stick gear, no new test for auto is
required.

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

On 6/12/2014 2:20 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>> sf wrote:
>>>> Julie Nilsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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???
>>>>
>>>> I live in California. It's not against the law (so far) to talk hands
>>>> free although it has been proven to be a distraction. Smoking in
>>>> public was also allowed... until it wasn't. <shrug>
>>>
>>> It would be impossible to enforce, if nothing else.
>>> Surely people don't think that having a phone in one hand is
>>> the distraction making people drive through red lights and
>>> all the other stuff we see?
>>
>> Conversing, whether via phone or with passengers, s one of the most
>> common reasons people drive through stop signs and red lights. Smoking
>> requires zero consious thought, no more than chewing gum.
>>
>>> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>>
>> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
>> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
>> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
>> You obviously don't drive stick. It took me a long time getting used
>> to an automatic transmission... there are still occasions when I catch
>> myself going for the clutch to downshift. I'm driving automatic only
>> 24 years, I learned with stick and drove only stick for more than 30
>> years.
>
> I have two cars now, one with stick and one auto. One never forgets.
> If someone here passes a test with an auto, they have to take another
> test for stick gears. Having taken a test for a stick gear, no new test
> for auto is required.
>
I learned to drive with a stick but most times when we went to Europe
and rented such a manual car, there were about two hours of missed
shifts and stalls. These usually seemed to occur in large cities; I
particularly remember embarrassment in Zurich and Paris :-)

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...

>> I have two cars now, one with stick and one auto. One never forgets.
>> If someone here passes a test with an auto, they have to take another
>> test for stick gears. Having taken a test for a stick gear, no new test
>> for auto is required.
>>
> I learned to drive with a stick but most times when we went to Europe and
> rented such a manual car, there were about two hours of missed shifts and
> stalls. These usually seemed to occur in large cities; I particularly
> remember embarrassment in Zurich and Paris :-)

lol yes! I was the same after having just an auto for a long time. When I
drive my manual now, my worse problems is not the gears oddly enough, but
the hand brake! I never really use that with the auto. I think about
gears and clutch very carefully, but I forget about the handbrake and stall
when i am trying to start and move away I really need to drive it more,
but I do prefer my auto)

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

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Nellie
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:24:15 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> I am asking you about the 'studies' that you are calling up to tell other
>> people on here that they are wrong.
>>
>> I am asking you why you 'think' that hands-free cell phone talking is just
>> as/more dangerous than using the phone itself. You state that 'studies'
>> prove everyone wrong. So, I am wondering where those studies were when
>> California lawmakers decided to make it legal to talk hands-free.
>>
>> I am not the one who said that the studies were wrong. The studies I cited
>> were to prove that using the phone hands free is still distracting. Maybe
>> not *as* distracting as holding the phone but they still are.
>>
>> How in the heck should I know what CA did or where those studies were? I
>> can't answer.
>
>No, of course you can't, but you sure could tell everyone that they were 'WRONG' based on your supposed 'studies'.
>
>Now that you are called on it, you get all huffy. Nice, "Ms. I qualify for Mensa"

What's this about Mensa? No way... LOL

On 6/12/2014 2:08 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>
> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
> You obviously don't drive stick.

SIGH.

I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.

nancy

On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 2:08 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>>
>> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
>> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
>> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
>> You obviously don't drive stick.
>
> SIGH.
>
> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>
> nancy

The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW
Scirocco with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I
used to have was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove
a small Suzuki automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping
up half way on the drive. These days, the most important consideration
for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)

On 2014-06-12 4:24 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> SIGH.
>
> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>


Better? It's pretty hard not to be able to drive with an automatic.
Step on the gas pedal and the automatic transmission does the rest. I
learned to drive with a standard and spent close to 12 years driving
trucks. I was the senior equipment operator in the equipment section of
our district the highways department. We had four and five speed
trucks, 5 speeds with axle splitters, Roadrangers with 13 and 15 speeds,
and the most challenging of all, a 4X5.... 5 gears and 4 ranges.... two
shift levers.

My wife likes standard transmissions but I would not say that she is
good with them. She would rev the engine and let the clutch out slower.
Whenever I heard that I could picture the friction plates wearing. She
had to replace the clutch in every standard transmission car she ever
had. I have never had to replace a clutch in any of my cars, trucks or
motorcycles.

On 6/12/2014 4:41 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
>> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.

> The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW
> Scirocco with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I
> used to have was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove
> a small Suzuki automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping
> up half way on the drive. These days, the most important consideration
> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)

Well, that goes without saying, it's been a loooong time since
I had to make do with no a/c. When I think back, commuting 60 miles
each way, and my only air conditioning was the air blowing through
as you drove. Which was nil when it was stop and go.

But with the automatic, just point it in the right direction
and go, it's not fun for me. Not a question of get up and go.
I just find it a bore. What are you going to do.

nancy

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 6/12/2014 2:08 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>>>
>>> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
>>> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
>>> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
>>> You obviously don't drive stick.
>>
>> SIGH.
>>
>> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
>> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>>
>> nancy
>
> The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW Scirocco
> with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I used to have
> was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove a small Suzuki
> automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping up half way on
> the drive. These days, the most important consideration for me is an AC
> that works. That's all I care about! :-)

Cramp in your leg, because of the clutch? I had that problem when I started
to drive my manual car. I had to put the seat further back or I got cramp.
It a bit too far back for me and I don't get the clutch fully depressed
which can cause a bit of a problem. Is that what you meant?

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

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/12/2014 4:41 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
>>> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>
>> The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW
>> Scirocco with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I
>> used to have was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove
>> a small Suzuki automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping
>> up half way on the drive. These days, the most important consideration
>> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)
>
> Well, that goes without saying, it's been a loooong time since
> I had to make do with no a/c. When I think back, commuting 60 miles
> each way, and my only air conditioning was the air blowing through
> as you drove. Which was nil when it was stop and go.
>
> But with the automatic, just point it in the right direction
> and go, it's not fun for me. Not a question of get up and go.
> I just find it a bore. What are you going to do.

I love my auto. Who needs to do anything? I just enjoy the drive and
don't have to worry about anything else But that is just me


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

On 6/12/2014 10:55 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 4:41 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
>>> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>
>> The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW
>> Scirocco with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I
>> used to have was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove
>> a small Suzuki automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping
>> up half way on the drive. These days, the most important consideration
>> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)
>
> Well, that goes without saying, it's been a loooong time since
> I had to make do with no a/c. When I think back, commuting 60 miles
> each way, and my only air conditioning was the air blowing through
> as you drove. Which was nil when it was stop and go.

We call that 4-60 AC. Four windows down and driving 60 MPH. The AC on my
Passat kicked the bucket. I have to take it into the shop tomorrow. I
drive with 2 windows down and the moonroof open. It's actually, quite nice.

>
> But with the automatic, just point it in the right direction
> and go, it's not fun for me. Not a question of get up and go.
> I just find it a bore. What are you going to do.

Personally, I don't want anything exciting happening when I'm in a car.
Boring is just alright with me.

>
> nancy

On 6/12/2014 10:58 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/12/2014 10:24 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2014 2:08 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
>>>> a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
>>>> breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
>>>> You obviously don't drive stick.
>>>
>>> SIGH.
>>>
>>> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
>>> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> The experience you get depends a lot on the car and engine. My VW
>> Scirocco
>> with 4 speed was just wonderful. The Subaru with a 5 speed I used to have
>> was the most unpleasant car to drive. I recently test drove a small
>> Suzuki
>> automobile with a standard. My left leg started cramping up half way on
>> the drive. These days, the most important consideration for me is an AC
>> that works. That's all I care about! :-)
>
> Cramp in your leg, because of the clutch? I had that problem when I
> started to drive my manual car. I had to put the seat further back or I
> got cramp. It a bit too far back for me and I don't get the clutch
> fully depressed which can cause a bit of a problem. Is that what you
> meant?
>

I have a left leg that's a little "funny." You can call me a gimp - I
don't mind. To tell you the truth, I shouldn't be able to drive a
standard with my leg. Somehow I do it and I'm not even sure how I'm able
to. Anyway, my leg cramped up at the thigh. I agree with your analysis -
I may have had the seat a little too far forward. That car was too damn
small!

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:24:52 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> On 6/12/2014 2:08 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> They'd ban stick shifts, too, if that was the problem.
> >
> > Not nearly the same thing... once learned driving stick is like riding
> > a bicycle or swimming, requires no more consious thought than
> > breathing... takes more consious thought to urinate than drive stick.
> > You obviously don't drive stick.
>
> SIGH.
>
> I can drive a stick better than an automatic. I never did
> get used to an automatic, and it's no fun to drive.
>
My attitude is the opposite. Drove them exclusively for years, never
even remotely liked a stick shift - sports car, sedan, didn't matter.
It was just a PITA.


--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:41:55 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> These days, the most important consideration
> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)

Electric windows and a moon roof for me... an 8 way seat is nice too.


--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:10:50 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> Personally, I don't want anything exciting happening when I'm in a car.
> Boring is just alright with me.

Our car is one of those automatics that you can shift if you want to.
Hubby loves shifting, I hate listening to the motor make those noises.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On 2014-06-12 4:55 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>, that goes without saying, it's been a loooong time since
> I had to make do with no a/c. When I think back, commuting 60 miles
> each way, and my only air conditioning was the air blowing through
> as you drove. Which was nil when it was stop and go.
>

My wife is going to have to learn to live without AC. Her car just had
over $1000 worth of work done, mostly brake related. I had the mechanic
look at the AV and ventilation. Turns out the condenser has a hole in
it, and there is a problem with relays for the circulation system. It
is my mother's old car, a 1997 Buick, and my wife only drives about 50
miles per week. I offered to get her a newer car but she loves that old
car. I am not about to sink another $500 or more for AC. If it gets too
hot she can use my car.


> But with the automatic, just point it in the right direction
> and go, it's not fun for me. Not a question of get up and go.
> I just find it a bore. What are you going to do.
>
Standards are nice in some situations, even city driving. They are a
PITA in stop and go traffic. I used to have to deal with rush hour
traffic in a truck. If people here have issues with folding the clutch
down in a car they should try it in a truck where the pedal pressure is
about 10 times greater.

On 2014-06-12 5:45 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:41:55 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> These days, the most important consideration
>> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)
>
> Electric windows and a moon roof for me... an 8 way seat is nice too.
>
>


I like the moon roof in my CRV a lot more than I had expected to. Our
Buick has all sorts of seating controls. As I am driving down the road I
like to play with them in the eternal search for a comfortable position.
My old Honda Civic never needed them. The seats were always comfortable.

On 6/12/2014 11:45 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:41:55 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> These days, the most important consideration
>> for me is an AC that works. That's all I care about! :-)
>
> Electric windows and a moon roof for me... an 8 way seat is nice too.
>
>

Yes... yes!