A New Category of Sloth

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> "Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to
> get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net
> result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

This reminds of a particularly rude LLB, whom when I got his attention
just thought his behavior of blocking up the entire road because of his
phone call was perfectly acceptable.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
>
> http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
>
> Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to
> brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also
> kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17
> percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That
> frustrates everyone.
>

It's insanity that these things are allowed in cars. Same with radios.
I'm sick of these murderers endangering me and mine.

TV's Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
>>
>> http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
>>
>> Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to
>> brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also
>> kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17
>> percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That
>> frustrates everyone.
>>
>
> It's insanity that these things are allowed in cars. Same with radios.
> I'm sick of these murderers endangering me and mine.

Then don't go anywhere.

--

"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian
religion" - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>> "Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to
>> get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net
>> result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."
>
> This reminds of a particularly rude LLB, whom when I got his attention

When in doubt, use "who". At least you can say it was a colloquialism.

> just thought his behavior of blocking up the entire road because of his
> phone call was perfectly acceptable.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:43:28 -0800, Scott en Aztlán > wrote:
>What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?

>http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html


There was no information in the article on how the study was conducted.
If it was conducted.

TCS wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:43:28 -0800, Scott en Aztl=E1n
> wrote:
> >What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
>
> >http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
>
>
> There was no information in the article on how the study was
conducted.
> If it was conducted.

Why do you defend these killers on our highways. URACRIMINALCODDLER

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> TCS wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:43:28 -0800, Scott en Aztl=E1n
> > wrote:
> > >What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
> >
> > >http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
> >
> >
> > There was no information in the article on how the study was
> conducted.
> > If it was conducted.
>
> Why do you defend these killers on our highways. URACRIMINALCODDLER

Most of us like to make logical decisions based on hard facts, rather
than bomb throwing statements backed up purely by emotion.

Blah blah blah.

I sped today. What are you going to do about it?

That's right. Whine all you want. Won't change a thing.

On 13 Feb 2005 21:53:38 -0800, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend > wrote:

>TCS wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:43:28 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>> >What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
>>
>> >http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
>>
>>
>> There was no information in the article on how the study was
>conducted.
>> If it was conducted.

>Why do you defend these killers on our highways. URACRIMINALCODDLER

Because I don't give in to hysteria easily.

If you saw reports that correlated talking with passengers with highway
deaths, would you rush out to have all passengers muzzled?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:43:28 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>What should be call them? Sloth Yakkers?
>
>http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
>
>Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to
>brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also
>kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17
>percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That
>frustrates everyone.
>

And bear in mind that the 17% longer figure is actually much larger
when compared to drivers with a brain.

I was cruising down 101 yesterday and hit traffic - there was no
apparent reason for the slowdown - traffic was backed up in the other
direction too and it could have been a "sympathy" traffic jam, but
whatever - it cleared up after a few minutes and I looked in my mirror
and saw that suddenly there was a huge gap between me and the traffic
behind me - like a quarter mile gap at least.

For some reason, some people will continue to do 30 in a 65 even
though whatever was slowing them down before goes away.

>"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to
>get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net
>result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."