Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Mike" wrote in message
newsyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..


Yeah, prove it liarboi.

You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.

Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

Nope, it's all about you...


Always was.

Bertie

http://www.ford.com/innovation/autom...r-studies-324p

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

jeremy wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Hand free phones have freed up the italians to talk while driving of
course. Can't talk without your hands..


Bertie

Really scary when the Italians are on the phone while driving a Vespa
with the wife and four kids on the back.

Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that rivaled
the chase scene in Ronan once.
They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
Europe's.


Bertie

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:JOZtk.38$jE1.32@trnddc03...


What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?

When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage idiot?

You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.

Prove you are, prove I'm not.

The proof is writen on a turd deep in your colon. Stick your head in a
little farther and you'll find it. I promise.


You're just hat dancing Mikey Mouth.

Driving while using a cell phone increases you chance of accident by 400
to 500%? What a dumb ass.

Hmm, so which sould I believe, the British Medical Journal, the University
of Utah, The New England Journal of Medicine,

or...

the villiage idiot.

Decisions, decisions.


I'll have to put you up for the Bertie's Dumbest Assed Suckpuppet award.

Coming from the villiage idiot, that really hurts.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
newsyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..


Yeah, prove it liarboi.

You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.

Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

I never changed the subject.

The subject with you has always been how you're a putz unworthy of a
response to any of your questions.

I've already given you as good as you're ever going to get. Feel free to
keep asking ad nausem like a frustrated schoolgirl. The response and the
subject will always be the same.

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that rivaled
the chase scene in Ronan once.
They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
Europe's.

Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?

John Smith wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that
rivaled the chase scene in Ronan once.
They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
Europe's.

Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?


No. Seems to be a machismo thing, though, eh?


Bertie

"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.

"John Smith" wrote

Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?

I had an interesting taxi ride in Prague, about 6 months after they went
free, that was plenty exciting.

I have not been to PR or Rome, yet.
--
Jim in NC

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote in message
...
Ban homebuilts and Cessna 150's??? What is he thinking? Isn't he concerned
about aviation safety? This makes no sense at all. Did Mr. Walker learn
NOTHING from 9/11? How could he be so unaware? Isn't the danger presented by
large transport aircraft painfully clear? Does he have any concern for public
safety at all?

Yes, small aircraft are sometimes involved in accidents - but what is the
outcome? Beyond the occupants, it exceedingly rare to involve any innocent
bystanders at all. But what happens when one of the flying WMDs comes down in
a populated area? THOUSANDS DEAD!!!
Can you imagine what would happen if a fully loaded 767 were to experience
problems and crash in to a crowded casino - spewing 5,000 gallons of jet fuel
onto thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people? People that he is supposed to
be protecting!

How can he, or any of us, live with ourselves knowing that this kind of
tragedy isn't just possible, but given time, inevitable?

How can he continue to turn a blind eye to this tremendous threat to human
life?

How can we not DEMAND that these large aircraft be banned from flying over or
landing in the vicinity of a populated area? Clearly, at a MINIMUM, any
aircraft with a gross weight over 30,000 pound should absolutely forbidden to
approach within 50 miles of a populated area. And, I suspect, that if Mr.
Walker were to consider this carefully, he would agree that the only way that
we can be safe is if large aircraft are banned from the sky completely.

We went to war with Iraq over WMDs, why do we ignore the ones flying over our
heads every day?

Good, very good. You have me convinced.