Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01, "Mike"
wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
me).

Crusade all you want.

it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by
people
who don't understand how to analysis risk.

Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by
4-5
times.

hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
cellphone usage has exploded? In fact, the accident rate has remained
flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)

You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number. They do track
injuries and fatalities which have been on a downward trend for the last 30
years or more for a variety of reasons like safer cars, safer roads,
increased seat belt useage, airbags, reduced drunk driving, and a number of
other things. The overall trend proves nothing in relationship to cell
phones unless you can calculate what the rate WOULD be without cell phones,
which has been done. The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...l_pho nes.pdf




But you prove my point beautifully.

You don't understand proofs.

Pot/Kettle.


People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets? and leather jackets or
equivalent protective clothing when riding? Talk about inconvenience.

By "people" I obviously mean people in general. The numbers for seat belt
useage didn't rise dramatically until states started requiring them despite
the overwealming evidence that they save lives. Drunk driving didn't
decrease until punishment and enforcement were increased. There's other
examples as well.

Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
to support the help being effective....

My point was people don't care whether there is evidence or not. Clearly
there's evidence to show cell phones (which was just one example, but there
are others) increase risk, but there will always be those who will ignore
such evidence because possible solutions may create an inconvienience to
themselves.

As I said, you proved my point. You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.