Re: No fault cell phone law

Liste des GroupesRevenir à m android 
Sujet : Re: No fault cell phone law
De : this (at) *nospam* ddress.is.invalid (Frank Slootweg)
Groupes : comp.mobile.android
Date : 21. Mar 2024, 17:34:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : NOYB
Message-ID : <uthniu.no8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-03-17 22:12, Andrew wrote:
Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
 
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
 
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
 
Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
accidents.

  In our country (NL) there are similar laws and we *know* that use of
mobile phones causes accidents, including with severe injury and death
(like 4 people in a (other) car), because we keep detailed stats on
circumstances, cause, etc..

  'Andrew' seems to have some problems with statistics, because the
accident rate not going up (BTW, it *does* go up in our country) doesn't
mean that use of mobile phones doesn't cause accidents (to anyone with a
somewhat functioning brain, it's blatantly obvious that it does). *Why*
he can't draw (t)his erronous conclusion, has been explained to him all
the previous times his silly claim came up. Some people learn, others
don't.

You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

  When 'Andrew' starts insulting, everyone knows he has no case, but
can't handle/admit that fact.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
17 Mar 24 * Re: No fault cell phone law36The Real Bev
17 Mar 24 `* Re: No fault cell phone law35Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law7Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law5The Real Bev
17 Mar 24  i `* Re: No fault cell phone law4Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law3The Real Bev
18 Mar 24  i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
18 Mar 24  i    `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law4AJL
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Frankie
18 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law2Stan Brown
18 Mar 24  i `- Re: No fault cell phone law1AJL
17 Mar 24  `* Re: No fault cell phone law23Andrew
17 Mar 24   +* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
18 Mar 24   i`- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
20 Mar 24   `* Re: No fault cell phone law20Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    +* Re: No fault cell phone law17AJL
20 Mar 24    i+* Re: No fault cell phone law10Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii`* Re: No fault cell phone law9Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii `* Re: No fault cell phone law8Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii  `* Re: No fault cell phone law7Hank Rogers
21 Mar 24    ii   `* Re: No fault cell phone law6Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii    +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
23 Mar 24    ii    `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
23 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Your Name
24 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Harry S Robins
29 Mar 24    ii     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1sms
20 Mar 24    i`* Re: No fault cell phone law6The Real Bev
20 Mar 24    i `* Re: No fault cell phone law5Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law3Indira
21 Mar 24    i    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Indira
21 Mar 24    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
24 Mar 24     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal