<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_1647247</id>
	<title>Fines Fail To Curb Cell Phone Usage While Driving</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260642000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>andylim writes <i>"An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an <a href="http://recombu.com/news/london-drivers-love-to-chat-legally-or-otherwise\_M11236.html">increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls</a> using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009, even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007. It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's <a href="http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201\_cell\_danger.html">a much higher risk of being involved in an accident</a> if you're using your cell phone."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>andylim writes " An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009 , even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007 .
It seems that most people , at least in London , still do n't respect the fact that there 's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you 're using your cell phone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>andylim writes "An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009, even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007.
It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418024</id>
	<title>Re:Prohibit children</title>
	<author>EsbenMoseHansen</author>
	<datestamp>1260618420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And cars!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And cars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And cars!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416576</id>
	<title>Pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260651360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people feel pressured to stay in touch with work or loved ones.  Yes, even pressure from loved ones.  If you ignore a text for 5 minutes or don't answer a call right away some people get upset.  There's enough crap for one day already especially with work on your ass when you're already working through lunch to get the job done.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Captcha is "groaning", how appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people feel pressured to stay in touch with work or loved ones .
Yes , even pressure from loved ones .
If you ignore a text for 5 minutes or do n't answer a call right away some people get upset .
There 's enough crap for one day already especially with work on your ass when you 're already working through lunch to get the job done .
  Captcha is " groaning " , how appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people feel pressured to stay in touch with work or loved ones.
Yes, even pressure from loved ones.
If you ignore a text for 5 minutes or don't answer a call right away some people get upset.
There's enough crap for one day already especially with work on your ass when you're already working through lunch to get the job done.
  Captcha is "groaning", how appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30429814</id>
	<title>Re:Prohibit children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment was probably meant to be funny, but still.</p><p>It is not the presence of mobile phones in cars that is dangerous, it is using them by the driver (while driving). Similar with kids being distracting. Having a kid in the car is not dangerous. Being irresponsible while having a kid in the car (such as trying to pick up a dropped pacifier while driving) is dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment was probably meant to be funny , but still.It is not the presence of mobile phones in cars that is dangerous , it is using them by the driver ( while driving ) .
Similar with kids being distracting .
Having a kid in the car is not dangerous .
Being irresponsible while having a kid in the car ( such as trying to pick up a dropped pacifier while driving ) is dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment was probably meant to be funny, but still.It is not the presence of mobile phones in cars that is dangerous, it is using them by the driver (while driving).
Similar with kids being distracting.
Having a kid in the car is not dangerous.
Being irresponsible while having a kid in the car (such as trying to pick up a dropped pacifier while driving) is dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30431526</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>Sax Maniac</author>
	<datestamp>1260808740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been thinking about this lately, since I know a bunch of parents who have teenagers...

The solution is not to suspend people's licenses, but to <b>suspend their mobile phone line</b>.  If you take away the license, they can get a ride or drive illegally and not get caught.  Take away their phone line, you kill their social life, and it's easier to enforce since it can be done centrally.  Sure, the person could go get a new pay-as-you-go phone... but with their account suspended, they will have a different number, and be still be cut off from all the people and services who have their old number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been thinking about this lately , since I know a bunch of parents who have teenagers.. . The solution is not to suspend people 's licenses , but to suspend their mobile phone line .
If you take away the license , they can get a ride or drive illegally and not get caught .
Take away their phone line , you kill their social life , and it 's easier to enforce since it can be done centrally .
Sure , the person could go get a new pay-as-you-go phone... but with their account suspended , they will have a different number , and be still be cut off from all the people and services who have their old number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been thinking about this lately, since I know a bunch of parents who have teenagers...

The solution is not to suspend people's licenses, but to suspend their mobile phone line.
If you take away the license, they can get a ride or drive illegally and not get caught.
Take away their phone line, you kill their social life, and it's easier to enforce since it can be done centrally.
Sure, the person could go get a new pay-as-you-go phone... but with their account suspended, they will have a different number, and be still be cut off from all the people and services who have their old number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416600</id>
	<title>Not victimless</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1260651540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Driving while distracted is not a victimless crime. There wouldn't be so much support for penalizing phoning and texting while driving if we weren't all experiencing idiotic driving by cell phone wielding seat warmers every day. Ninety percent of the time when I see another vehicle do something dumb - like running a red light, plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk when all the other traffic has stopped for somebody to cross, changing lanes without looking, or sitting at a green light - I then see that the zombie in the driver seat has a cell phone in their hand. It's just a matter of time before those dangerous acts become fatal acts.</p><p>Should driving drunk not be a crime until you kill somebody? Should firing a rifle randomly at a park not be a crime until you kill somebody?</p><p>I'm willing to wager that at least 50\% of accidents these days involve somebody under the influence of a cell phone. My 45-minute commute frequently gets pushed over an hour by daily accidents on busy roads. What's the cost of the thousands of people like me who are stuck in traffic for an extra 30 minutes?</p><p>I'd like a hood-mounted cell phone jammer on my car. But I fear it would just confuse the zombies more if they lost contact with their super important urgent essential conversation partner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Driving while distracted is not a victimless crime .
There would n't be so much support for penalizing phoning and texting while driving if we were n't all experiencing idiotic driving by cell phone wielding seat warmers every day .
Ninety percent of the time when I see another vehicle do something dumb - like running a red light , plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk when all the other traffic has stopped for somebody to cross , changing lanes without looking , or sitting at a green light - I then see that the zombie in the driver seat has a cell phone in their hand .
It 's just a matter of time before those dangerous acts become fatal acts.Should driving drunk not be a crime until you kill somebody ?
Should firing a rifle randomly at a park not be a crime until you kill somebody ? I 'm willing to wager that at least 50 \ % of accidents these days involve somebody under the influence of a cell phone .
My 45-minute commute frequently gets pushed over an hour by daily accidents on busy roads .
What 's the cost of the thousands of people like me who are stuck in traffic for an extra 30 minutes ? I 'd like a hood-mounted cell phone jammer on my car .
But I fear it would just confuse the zombies more if they lost contact with their super important urgent essential conversation partner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driving while distracted is not a victimless crime.
There wouldn't be so much support for penalizing phoning and texting while driving if we weren't all experiencing idiotic driving by cell phone wielding seat warmers every day.
Ninety percent of the time when I see another vehicle do something dumb - like running a red light, plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk when all the other traffic has stopped for somebody to cross, changing lanes without looking, or sitting at a green light - I then see that the zombie in the driver seat has a cell phone in their hand.
It's just a matter of time before those dangerous acts become fatal acts.Should driving drunk not be a crime until you kill somebody?
Should firing a rifle randomly at a park not be a crime until you kill somebody?I'm willing to wager that at least 50\% of accidents these days involve somebody under the influence of a cell phone.
My 45-minute commute frequently gets pushed over an hour by daily accidents on busy roads.
What's the cost of the thousands of people like me who are stuck in traffic for an extra 30 minutes?I'd like a hood-mounted cell phone jammer on my car.
But I fear it would just confuse the zombies more if they lost contact with their super important urgent essential conversation partner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416682</id>
	<title>Re:Prohibit children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260608940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child in the car? Are you a pedo or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child in the car ?
Are you a pedo or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child in the car?
Are you a pedo or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416206</id>
	<title>Blue Tooth</title>
	<author>WhatsAProGingrass</author>
	<datestamp>1260649380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solution:

Blue tooth keyboard that mounts to steering wheel so that half the keys are on left side of wheel and half on right side of wheel. It is blue tooth enabled to your phone. Either mount phone on steering whell or even better have a HUD on your windshield.

I would have to say it would be more likely for me to crash during texting then during reading a text. I can type without looking so get me that keyboard!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : Blue tooth keyboard that mounts to steering wheel so that half the keys are on left side of wheel and half on right side of wheel .
It is blue tooth enabled to your phone .
Either mount phone on steering whell or even better have a HUD on your windshield .
I would have to say it would be more likely for me to crash during texting then during reading a text .
I can type without looking so get me that keyboard ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution:

Blue tooth keyboard that mounts to steering wheel so that half the keys are on left side of wheel and half on right side of wheel.
It is blue tooth enabled to your phone.
Either mount phone on steering whell or even better have a HUD on your windshield.
I would have to say it would be more likely for me to crash during texting then during reading a text.
I can type without looking so get me that keyboard!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416436</id>
	<title>Re:Prohibit children</title>
	<author>Nethead</author>
	<datestamp>1260650580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tie a short string between the pacifier and rug-rat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tie a short string between the pacifier and rug-rat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tie a short string between the pacifier and rug-rat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212</id>
	<title>Technology vs technology</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1260649380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enforcement or behavior modification thru financial disincentives are always ineffective because they rely on people. People don't want, and should not be required, to mitigate the incredible stupidity of other people. <br> <br>Although the cost of a motor vehicle will increase, the solution is to install low power cell phone interference generators, multiple with redudancy and overlap, in all automobiles and other vehicles which use public roads. These devices would be active devices only when the vehicle is operating. This would not interfere with emergency calls since most emergencies <i>should </i> cause the vehicle to stop. The power should be kept very low; and the design should cause the system to burn out if <b>creative</b> people try to boost the power for <b>creative</b> purposes. Failure of the cell phone interference system should also cause the vehicle to fail annual inspection. <br> <br>This won't stop <b>creative</b> people from using cell phones while driving. But it will stop your average, technically disinclined idiot who should <i>not</i> be driving and phoning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enforcement or behavior modification thru financial disincentives are always ineffective because they rely on people .
People do n't want , and should not be required , to mitigate the incredible stupidity of other people .
Although the cost of a motor vehicle will increase , the solution is to install low power cell phone interference generators , multiple with redudancy and overlap , in all automobiles and other vehicles which use public roads .
These devices would be active devices only when the vehicle is operating .
This would not interfere with emergency calls since most emergencies should cause the vehicle to stop .
The power should be kept very low ; and the design should cause the system to burn out if creative people try to boost the power for creative purposes .
Failure of the cell phone interference system should also cause the vehicle to fail annual inspection .
This wo n't stop creative people from using cell phones while driving .
But it will stop your average , technically disinclined idiot who should not be driving and phoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enforcement or behavior modification thru financial disincentives are always ineffective because they rely on people.
People don't want, and should not be required, to mitigate the incredible stupidity of other people.
Although the cost of a motor vehicle will increase, the solution is to install low power cell phone interference generators, multiple with redudancy and overlap, in all automobiles and other vehicles which use public roads.
These devices would be active devices only when the vehicle is operating.
This would not interfere with emergency calls since most emergencies should  cause the vehicle to stop.
The power should be kept very low; and the design should cause the system to burn out if creative people try to boost the power for creative purposes.
Failure of the cell phone interference system should also cause the vehicle to fail annual inspection.
This won't stop creative people from using cell phones while driving.
But it will stop your average, technically disinclined idiot who should not be driving and phoning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416412</id>
	<title>The new drunk driving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260650460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to be when you saw some one weaving in a car they had been drinking. Now every time I see it the person is talking on their cell phone. If they drive like they are drunk then they are functionally drunk. Some may handle it better than others but it's risky behavior and it is killing people. I lost a close friend to a drunk driver and I just don't see the difference between some one all over the road while they obsessively talk on a cell phone and a drunk driver. It's even worse because drunk drivers aren't always drunk when they are behind a wheel but people that talk on phones when they drive tend to always do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be when you saw some one weaving in a car they had been drinking .
Now every time I see it the person is talking on their cell phone .
If they drive like they are drunk then they are functionally drunk .
Some may handle it better than others but it 's risky behavior and it is killing people .
I lost a close friend to a drunk driver and I just do n't see the difference between some one all over the road while they obsessively talk on a cell phone and a drunk driver .
It 's even worse because drunk drivers are n't always drunk when they are behind a wheel but people that talk on phones when they drive tend to always do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be when you saw some one weaving in a car they had been drinking.
Now every time I see it the person is talking on their cell phone.
If they drive like they are drunk then they are functionally drunk.
Some may handle it better than others but it's risky behavior and it is killing people.
I lost a close friend to a drunk driver and I just don't see the difference between some one all over the road while they obsessively talk on a cell phone and a drunk driver.
It's even worse because drunk drivers aren't always drunk when they are behind a wheel but people that talk on phones when they drive tend to always do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417110</id>
	<title>Technology will find a solution to the problem</title>
	<author>Killshot</author>
	<datestamp>1260611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny that most of this conversation is about creating more laws and not much about ideas for ways that technology can solve the problem.<br> <br>

Mobile communications are here to stay, there is no going back and there is no way you are going to stop people from answering their phone.<br>
Why do cars not yet come with bluetooth?   <br>
This would be simple and inexpensive.  A mic in the steering wheel and the sound comes through the speakers.
<br> <br>
I stopped texting and driving once I got an iphone because I can not send a message while looking at the road, while previously I could use T9 without looking.  But how about phones start offering text-to-speech and speech-to-text?
<br>
There are plenty of ways that we can make communicating on the road safer without trying to criminalize people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny that most of this conversation is about creating more laws and not much about ideas for ways that technology can solve the problem .
Mobile communications are here to stay , there is no going back and there is no way you are going to stop people from answering their phone .
Why do cars not yet come with bluetooth ?
This would be simple and inexpensive .
A mic in the steering wheel and the sound comes through the speakers .
I stopped texting and driving once I got an iphone because I can not send a message while looking at the road , while previously I could use T9 without looking .
But how about phones start offering text-to-speech and speech-to-text ?
There are plenty of ways that we can make communicating on the road safer without trying to criminalize people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny that most of this conversation is about creating more laws and not much about ideas for ways that technology can solve the problem.
Mobile communications are here to stay, there is no going back and there is no way you are going to stop people from answering their phone.
Why do cars not yet come with bluetooth?
This would be simple and inexpensive.
A mic in the steering wheel and the sound comes through the speakers.
I stopped texting and driving once I got an iphone because I can not send a message while looking at the road, while previously I could use T9 without looking.
But how about phones start offering text-to-speech and speech-to-text?
There are plenty of ways that we can make communicating on the road safer without trying to criminalize people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418572</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>robbak</author>
	<datestamp>1260624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the process of driving has been almost entirely been uploaded into the cerebellum, the process of driving takes very little of your conscious thought. The most important thing then becomes staying awake. A few 'distractions' will serve you quite well there.</p><p>Oh, and don't you love those 'how dangerous is using a mobile phone' tests? The person on the other end asking them complex logical or mathematical questions while they are tasked with driving the car through a tight obstacle course, reversing or taking evasive action? And how the drivers don't do what any driver in a real situation would do - Tell the person on the other end that they are driving and can't answer the complex question, of just drop the phone when they need to evade something? Or, realistically, the driver in question would not attempt the tasks, even if they weren't on the phone. (What, drive my car down that narrow path? I'll loose my bumper before I'm half way there!)</p><p>And lastly, don't you hate those 'increase the risk by n\%' statements? They are completely meaningless unless the base risk is also stated. If the risk of something happening is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01\% normally, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.015\% if I do or not do something, then the number I am interested in is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.005\%, the absolute increase in the risk, not a relative 50\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the process of driving has been almost entirely been uploaded into the cerebellum , the process of driving takes very little of your conscious thought .
The most important thing then becomes staying awake .
A few 'distractions ' will serve you quite well there.Oh , and do n't you love those 'how dangerous is using a mobile phone ' tests ?
The person on the other end asking them complex logical or mathematical questions while they are tasked with driving the car through a tight obstacle course , reversing or taking evasive action ?
And how the drivers do n't do what any driver in a real situation would do - Tell the person on the other end that they are driving and ca n't answer the complex question , of just drop the phone when they need to evade something ?
Or , realistically , the driver in question would not attempt the tasks , even if they were n't on the phone .
( What , drive my car down that narrow path ?
I 'll loose my bumper before I 'm half way there !
) And lastly , do n't you hate those 'increase the risk by n \ % ' statements ?
They are completely meaningless unless the base risk is also stated .
If the risk of something happening is .01 \ % normally , and .015 \ % if I do or not do something , then the number I am interested in is .005 \ % , the absolute increase in the risk , not a relative 50 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the process of driving has been almost entirely been uploaded into the cerebellum, the process of driving takes very little of your conscious thought.
The most important thing then becomes staying awake.
A few 'distractions' will serve you quite well there.Oh, and don't you love those 'how dangerous is using a mobile phone' tests?
The person on the other end asking them complex logical or mathematical questions while they are tasked with driving the car through a tight obstacle course, reversing or taking evasive action?
And how the drivers don't do what any driver in a real situation would do - Tell the person on the other end that they are driving and can't answer the complex question, of just drop the phone when they need to evade something?
Or, realistically, the driver in question would not attempt the tasks, even if they weren't on the phone.
(What, drive my car down that narrow path?
I'll loose my bumper before I'm half way there!
)And lastly, don't you hate those 'increase the risk by n\%' statements?
They are completely meaningless unless the base risk is also stated.
If the risk of something happening is .01\% normally, and .015\% if I do or not do something, then the number I am interested in is .005\%, the absolute increase in the risk, not a relative 50\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415974</id>
	<title>By "much higher" you mean "10\%".</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1260647280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's bad, but it's not <i>that</i> bad.</p><p>It would be interesting to see a productivity study to go along with the accident study. I'm not claiming to know what it might say, but it would be interesting to understand if any tangible benefit could be defined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad , but it 's not that bad.It would be interesting to see a productivity study to go along with the accident study .
I 'm not claiming to know what it might say , but it would be interesting to understand if any tangible benefit could be defined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad, but it's not that bad.It would be interesting to see a productivity study to go along with the accident study.
I'm not claiming to know what it might say, but it would be interesting to understand if any tangible benefit could be defined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30421042</id>
	<title>Rip off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260737220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When cell's first started appearing on the market in Australia many moons ago, what us motorbike riders did when we saw someone on the phone was to rip-off their car antenna's and then dissapear into the sunset.<br>It felt good to do that.</p><p>But today, the antennae is often built in to the glass, its no longer possible to do that.</p><p>I wonder what the fine is for breaking a cars window?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When cell 's first started appearing on the market in Australia many moons ago , what us motorbike riders did when we saw someone on the phone was to rip-off their car antenna 's and then dissapear into the sunset.It felt good to do that.But today , the antennae is often built in to the glass , its no longer possible to do that.I wonder what the fine is for breaking a cars window ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When cell's first started appearing on the market in Australia many moons ago, what us motorbike riders did when we saw someone on the phone was to rip-off their car antenna's and then dissapear into the sunset.It felt good to do that.But today, the antennae is often built in to the glass, its no longer possible to do that.I wonder what the fine is for breaking a cars window?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418658</id>
	<title>Easy solution:</title>
	<author>Lost Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1260625500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HERF guns for the win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HERF guns for the win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HERF guns for the win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416278</id>
	<title>LA may be better</title>
	<author>dFaust</author>
	<datestamp>1260649740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My own casual observation (and one that my friends seem to agree with) is that since Los Angeles introduced a similar law last year, it has in fact curbed such behavior. Prior to that it seemed to be a much bigger problem (as it was in previous cities I lived in). This isn't to say you don't still see it most of the times that you drive, but more frequently it's that one idiot on the cell phone during your trip rather than a whole road full of idiots on their cell phones.
</p><p>
Everyone I know has also made it a point to get a bluetooth headset to use while they're driving, as well. Your Los Angeles Mileage May Vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My own casual observation ( and one that my friends seem to agree with ) is that since Los Angeles introduced a similar law last year , it has in fact curbed such behavior .
Prior to that it seemed to be a much bigger problem ( as it was in previous cities I lived in ) .
This is n't to say you do n't still see it most of the times that you drive , but more frequently it 's that one idiot on the cell phone during your trip rather than a whole road full of idiots on their cell phones .
Everyone I know has also made it a point to get a bluetooth headset to use while they 're driving , as well .
Your Los Angeles Mileage May Vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My own casual observation (and one that my friends seem to agree with) is that since Los Angeles introduced a similar law last year, it has in fact curbed such behavior.
Prior to that it seemed to be a much bigger problem (as it was in previous cities I lived in).
This isn't to say you don't still see it most of the times that you drive, but more frequently it's that one idiot on the cell phone during your trip rather than a whole road full of idiots on their cell phones.
Everyone I know has also made it a point to get a bluetooth headset to use while they're driving, as well.
Your Los Angeles Mileage May Vary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416668</id>
	<title>Re:Technology vs technology</title>
	<author>Cwix</author>
	<datestamp>1260608880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if your car goes off the road and your trapped in it and its on fire, and this is reasonable, you want your phone to NOT work?  Hmm if you wish for survival of the fittest to weed you and yours out, feel free, leave me out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if your car goes off the road and your trapped in it and its on fire , and this is reasonable , you want your phone to NOT work ?
Hmm if you wish for survival of the fittest to weed you and yours out , feel free , leave me out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if your car goes off the road and your trapped in it and its on fire, and this is reasonable, you want your phone to NOT work?
Hmm if you wish for survival of the fittest to weed you and yours out, feel free, leave me out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416082</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260648360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh Come On!  You will never be elected by being soft on crime!  We must INCREASE THE PENALTIES!</p><p>Take money out of education, social programs, health care, rehab, and PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh Come On !
You will never be elected by being soft on crime !
We must INCREASE THE PENALTIES ! Take money out of education , social programs , health care , rehab , and PUNISH THE CRIMINALS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh Come On!
You will never be elected by being soft on crime!
We must INCREASE THE PENALTIES!Take money out of education, social programs, health care, rehab, and PUNISH THE CRIMINALS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416744</id>
	<title>Once Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260609420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, a little observation supports the general assumption that most people are stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , a little observation supports the general assumption that most people are stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, a little observation supports the general assumption that most people are stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416126</id>
	<title>Risk</title>
	<author>valkraider</author>
	<datestamp>1260648600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're"

in a car.

In the USA 40,000 people a year are killed by the automobile directly, and thousands more are killed by the side effects of an automobile centric society.

That is more than ten 9/11s.

every.  single.  year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" there 's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you 're " in a car .
In the USA 40,000 people a year are killed by the automobile directly , and thousands more are killed by the side effects of an automobile centric society .
That is more than ten 9/11s .
every. single .
year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're"

in a car.
In the USA 40,000 people a year are killed by the automobile directly, and thousands more are killed by the side effects of an automobile centric society.
That is more than ten 9/11s.
every.  single.
year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416434</id>
	<title>"Most people ... still don't respect"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260650580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that TFA says ~3\% of people surveyed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/in London/ use their mobile phones while driving, this doesn't seem to suggest what the article states - "It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone."</p><p>3\% =/= most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that TFA says ~ 3 \ % of people surveyed /in London/ use their mobile phones while driving , this does n't seem to suggest what the article states - " It seems that most people , at least in London , still do n't respect the fact that there 's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you 're using your cell phone .
" 3 \ % = / = most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that TFA says ~3\% of people surveyed /in London/ use their mobile phones while driving, this doesn't seem to suggest what the article states - "It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone.
"3\% =/= most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416102</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260648480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.</p></div><p>What planet do you live on? Facts don't dissuade people from doing what they want to do. A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation: people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence, they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely. In their minds, those studies and laws apply to all those <i>other</i> people, not <i>me</i>. It's very reminiscent of "well, most people probably shouldn't drive after drinking, but <i>I</i> can do it just fine."

</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children. If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly.</p></div><p>How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and her mind focused on <i>driving</i>? How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she's going? How about teaching her that the world won't come to an end if she's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising ?
Strange as it may see , most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.What planet do you live on ?
Facts do n't dissuade people from doing what they want to do .
A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation : people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence , they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely .
In their minds , those studies and laws apply to all those other people , not me .
It 's very reminiscent of " well , most people probably should n't drive after drinking , but I can do it just fine .
" I think the best way to " think of the children " is to teach the children .
If you do n't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck , teach her how to text and drive responsibly.How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel , both eyes on the road , and her mind focused on driving ?
How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she 's going ?
How about teaching her that the world wo n't come to an end if she 's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising?
Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.What planet do you live on?
Facts don't dissuade people from doing what they want to do.
A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation: people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence, they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely.
In their minds, those studies and laws apply to all those other people, not me.
It's very reminiscent of "well, most people probably shouldn't drive after drinking, but I can do it just fine.
"

I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children.
If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly.How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and her mind focused on driving?
How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she's going?
How about teaching her that the world won't come to an end if she's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415914</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I'm concerned, people have the right to do what they want in their cars. If they fuck up, then there are consequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 'm concerned , people have the right to do what they want in their cars .
If they fuck up , then there are consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I'm concerned, people have the right to do what they want in their cars.
If they fuck up, then there are consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415860</id>
	<title>I think fines will make little difference</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1260646440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to enforce, and you would have to get enforcement percentages way up there for people to decide the risk/reward ratio wasn't worth it.  And your police officers have more important things to be doing with their time.</p><p>No, the thing to do if you're a government and want to make people safer given this behavior is to do everything you possibly can to encourage the development and use of economical self-driving cars and/or really excellent public transportation.</p><p>Frankly, driving is a waste of valuable time and a task humans are ill-suited to doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to enforce , and you would have to get enforcement percentages way up there for people to decide the risk/reward ratio was n't worth it .
And your police officers have more important things to be doing with their time.No , the thing to do if you 're a government and want to make people safer given this behavior is to do everything you possibly can to encourage the development and use of economical self-driving cars and/or really excellent public transportation.Frankly , driving is a waste of valuable time and a task humans are ill-suited to doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to enforce, and you would have to get enforcement percentages way up there for people to decide the risk/reward ratio wasn't worth it.
And your police officers have more important things to be doing with their time.No, the thing to do if you're a government and want to make people safer given this behavior is to do everything you possibly can to encourage the development and use of economical self-driving cars and/or really excellent public transportation.Frankly, driving is a waste of valuable time and a task humans are ill-suited to doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30436190</id>
	<title>Morons in cars on phones</title>
	<author>sinisterish</author>
	<datestamp>1260788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't speak for anywhere else but London. Car drivers in London get away with murder, literally. I see dickheads watching televisions in their cars on the Marylebone Road and Westway. Most of these cretins don't know what a mirror is for, think the reason there are two head lights and two rear lights is because one's a spare, and think the orange light at each corner is there so they can stop and park anywhere while all four are flashing. A red traffic light in London means another two or three can carry on through, and speed limits mean nothing at all. Having had a friend killed by one of these arseholes on the phone, I would treat it the same as drink or drug driving and give them at least a years ban. Actually if I had my way it would be a game of russian roulette by the side of the road, as that's what they are doing with the lives of those around them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't speak for anywhere else but London .
Car drivers in London get away with murder , literally .
I see dickheads watching televisions in their cars on the Marylebone Road and Westway .
Most of these cretins do n't know what a mirror is for , think the reason there are two head lights and two rear lights is because one 's a spare , and think the orange light at each corner is there so they can stop and park anywhere while all four are flashing .
A red traffic light in London means another two or three can carry on through , and speed limits mean nothing at all .
Having had a friend killed by one of these arseholes on the phone , I would treat it the same as drink or drug driving and give them at least a years ban .
Actually if I had my way it would be a game of russian roulette by the side of the road , as that 's what they are doing with the lives of those around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't speak for anywhere else but London.
Car drivers in London get away with murder, literally.
I see dickheads watching televisions in their cars on the Marylebone Road and Westway.
Most of these cretins don't know what a mirror is for, think the reason there are two head lights and two rear lights is because one's a spare, and think the orange light at each corner is there so they can stop and park anywhere while all four are flashing.
A red traffic light in London means another two or three can carry on through, and speed limits mean nothing at all.
Having had a friend killed by one of these arseholes on the phone, I would treat it the same as drink or drug driving and give them at least a years ban.
Actually if I had my way it would be a game of russian roulette by the side of the road, as that's what they are doing with the lives of those around them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418166</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>hldn</author>
	<datestamp>1260619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some dipshit talking on his cellphone almost backed into me while i was at a gas pump.. he started swearing at me out his window so i mimed talking on a cellphone at him, and he then felt his pride was so threatened that he had to get out of his car and rage at me for it.  he actually wanted to fight me over it even though there was a sheriff's suv parked right next to us and two cops were in the gas station.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some dipshit talking on his cellphone almost backed into me while i was at a gas pump.. he started swearing at me out his window so i mimed talking on a cellphone at him , and he then felt his pride was so threatened that he had to get out of his car and rage at me for it .
he actually wanted to fight me over it even though there was a sheriff 's suv parked right next to us and two cops were in the gas station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some dipshit talking on his cellphone almost backed into me while i was at a gas pump.. he started swearing at me out his window so i mimed talking on a cellphone at him, and he then felt his pride was so threatened that he had to get out of his car and rage at me for it.
he actually wanted to fight me over it even though there was a sheriff's suv parked right next to us and two cops were in the gas station.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415918</id>
	<title>The human condition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We as humans by and large dismiss the chances of bad things happening if they haven't occurred to us yet in our lifetimes. This is especially true of adults who think they have "seen it all". I highly doubt those who have been in an accident caused by distracted driving would be so quick to dismiss it's danger. We see the same phenomena with many kinds of natural disasters where people choose to wait it out thinking that is can't possibly be as bad as it ends up being. Many people fill their lives with things that if they took a moment to think about the impact they would never do them again. Smoking and tailgating come to mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We as humans by and large dismiss the chances of bad things happening if they have n't occurred to us yet in our lifetimes .
This is especially true of adults who think they have " seen it all " .
I highly doubt those who have been in an accident caused by distracted driving would be so quick to dismiss it 's danger .
We see the same phenomena with many kinds of natural disasters where people choose to wait it out thinking that is ca n't possibly be as bad as it ends up being .
Many people fill their lives with things that if they took a moment to think about the impact they would never do them again .
Smoking and tailgating come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We as humans by and large dismiss the chances of bad things happening if they haven't occurred to us yet in our lifetimes.
This is especially true of adults who think they have "seen it all".
I highly doubt those who have been in an accident caused by distracted driving would be so quick to dismiss it's danger.
We see the same phenomena with many kinds of natural disasters where people choose to wait it out thinking that is can't possibly be as bad as it ends up being.
Many people fill their lives with things that if they took a moment to think about the impact they would never do them again.
Smoking and tailgating come to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418296</id>
	<title>that's unpossible</title>
	<author>Keep Six</author>
	<datestamp>1260620880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ask anyone you know that is a licensed driver: Is your driving:

A)average
B)below average
C)above average?

Go on- I dare you.
You'll "C" what I mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask anyone you know that is a licensed driver : Is your driving : A ) average B ) below average C ) above average ?
Go on- I dare you .
You 'll " C " what I mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask anyone you know that is a licensed driver: Is your driving:

A)average
B)below average
C)above average?
Go on- I dare you.
You'll "C" what I mean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422712</id>
	<title>Re:It's b/c we live in an age of instant contact</title>
	<author>evilninjax</author>
	<datestamp>1260721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's funny is how IMMEDIATE physical contact is often viewed as secondary to sms contact.  So many times I'm talking to someone and in the middle of my sentence, he'll suddenly just turn away, head down, and start reading his sms.  "Dude, I'm talking here..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny is how IMMEDIATE physical contact is often viewed as secondary to sms contact .
So many times I 'm talking to someone and in the middle of my sentence , he 'll suddenly just turn away , head down , and start reading his sms .
" Dude , I 'm talking here... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny is how IMMEDIATE physical contact is often viewed as secondary to sms contact.
So many times I'm talking to someone and in the middle of my sentence, he'll suddenly just turn away, head down, and start reading his sms.
"Dude, I'm talking here..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416054</id>
	<title>Double Standard</title>
	<author>beachels416</author>
	<datestamp>1260648120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also from California, where it has been illegal to drive while on a cell phone for some time now.  The problem is that not only is the fine only $20, but it is also only a secondary offense, meaning that you can only be cited for cell phone use in conjunction with some other ticket, such as speeding or reckless driving.  That means that even if the police see you talking while driving, they can't do anything about it short of checking if your tail lights are both working and trying to get you on that.  Not only that, but it seems to me that not everyone thinks the law applies to them.  Take Maria Shriver for example, she was caught by paparazzi (yes I normally hate them) talking on her cell phone, and although Arnold threatened to "punish her," I know that it certainly doesn't make me want to stop using my cell phone in the car.  Maybe it's because I'm part of the younger generation who learned to drive when cell phones were already prevalent.  Nothing against older people, but it seems to me that most of the accidents are caused by them on cell phones, not by the younger one that grew up with cell phones...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also from California , where it has been illegal to drive while on a cell phone for some time now .
The problem is that not only is the fine only $ 20 , but it is also only a secondary offense , meaning that you can only be cited for cell phone use in conjunction with some other ticket , such as speeding or reckless driving .
That means that even if the police see you talking while driving , they ca n't do anything about it short of checking if your tail lights are both working and trying to get you on that .
Not only that , but it seems to me that not everyone thinks the law applies to them .
Take Maria Shriver for example , she was caught by paparazzi ( yes I normally hate them ) talking on her cell phone , and although Arnold threatened to " punish her , " I know that it certainly does n't make me want to stop using my cell phone in the car .
Maybe it 's because I 'm part of the younger generation who learned to drive when cell phones were already prevalent .
Nothing against older people , but it seems to me that most of the accidents are caused by them on cell phones , not by the younger one that grew up with cell phones.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also from California, where it has been illegal to drive while on a cell phone for some time now.
The problem is that not only is the fine only $20, but it is also only a secondary offense, meaning that you can only be cited for cell phone use in conjunction with some other ticket, such as speeding or reckless driving.
That means that even if the police see you talking while driving, they can't do anything about it short of checking if your tail lights are both working and trying to get you on that.
Not only that, but it seems to me that not everyone thinks the law applies to them.
Take Maria Shriver for example, she was caught by paparazzi (yes I normally hate them) talking on her cell phone, and although Arnold threatened to "punish her," I know that it certainly doesn't make me want to stop using my cell phone in the car.
Maybe it's because I'm part of the younger generation who learned to drive when cell phones were already prevalent.
Nothing against older people, but it seems to me that most of the accidents are caused by them on cell phones, not by the younger one that grew up with cell phones...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417764</id>
	<title>Insurance Company Coverage</title>
	<author>ArcticBirdman</author>
	<datestamp>1260616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that some insurance companies now have a clause that if you were using a phone while in an accident, your policy is null and void, meaning you have no coverage, plus no medical coverage. To carry this further, if you cause a death, then you should be charged with murder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that some insurance companies now have a clause that if you were using a phone while in an accident , your policy is null and void , meaning you have no coverage , plus no medical coverage .
To carry this further , if you cause a death , then you should be charged with murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that some insurance companies now have a clause that if you were using a phone while in an accident, your policy is null and void, meaning you have no coverage, plus no medical coverage.
To carry this further, if you cause a death, then you should be charged with murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416666</id>
	<title>Re:Technology vs technology</title>
	<author>base3</author>
	<datestamp>1260608880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you want to outlaw passengers using cell phones, too? How about the nanny state mind its own fscking business and deal with actual bad driving? Oh, that's right--that would take work and not generate so much revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want to outlaw passengers using cell phones , too ?
How about the nanny state mind its own fscking business and deal with actual bad driving ?
Oh , that 's right--that would take work and not generate so much revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want to outlaw passengers using cell phones, too?
How about the nanny state mind its own fscking business and deal with actual bad driving?
Oh, that's right--that would take work and not generate so much revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416080</id>
	<title>Obvious....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260648300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not the amount of the fine it's the likelihood for getting caught.</p><p>same as every other crime.</p><p>People will risk their jobs just to nick a 20c pen from work.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not the amount of the fine it 's the likelihood for getting caught.same as every other crime.People will risk their jobs just to nick a 20c pen from work.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not the amount of the fine it's the likelihood for getting caught.same as every other crime.People will risk their jobs just to nick a 20c pen from work.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30420866</id>
	<title>it's only risky for the bad drivers</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1260647940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's only risky for the bad drivers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and I'm not one of the bad drivers, so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I'm driving.</p><p>No, seriously!  I mean it!  Stop laughing!</p><p>Actually, the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention.  Ever had somebody do that?  Um-hum, I thought so.  Well, now you know, so you can do it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's only risky for the bad drivers ... and I 'm not one of the bad drivers , so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I 'm driving.No , seriously !
I mean it !
Stop laughing ! Actually , the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention .
Ever had somebody do that ?
Um-hum , I thought so .
Well , now you know , so you can do it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's only risky for the bad drivers ... and I'm not one of the bad drivers, so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I'm driving.No, seriously!
I mean it!
Stop laughing!Actually, the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention.
Ever had somebody do that?
Um-hum, I thought so.
Well, now you know, so you can do it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418524</id>
	<title>Stupid Law.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1260623520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody obeys laws that are pointless and stupid.  This should be a no-brainer.  Talking on the phone is less distracting that talking to a real person.  Is THAT going to be illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody obeys laws that are pointless and stupid .
This should be a no-brainer .
Talking on the phone is less distracting that talking to a real person .
Is THAT going to be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody obeys laws that are pointless and stupid.
This should be a no-brainer.
Talking on the phone is less distracting that talking to a real person.
Is THAT going to be illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416938</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1260610500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just going to point this gun at your head for a while.  Unless I pull the trigger, it shouldn't be illegal.<br> <br>

It's quite reasonable to make illegal some specific activities that drastically increase the probability of a fatal incident.  Endangering the lives of others around you is wrong.<br> <br>

The motive behind the law is to prevent accidents through active punishment and awareness of the law.  I frequently disagree with the police, but that seems like a fairly reasonable and justified strategy to me.<br> <br>

On the other hand, waiting until afterwards is a bad idea.  What's the use in punishing people then?  Revenge?  By that stage they've already learned their lesson; perhaps at the cost someone else's life, or their own.  That's too little, too late.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to point this gun at your head for a while .
Unless I pull the trigger , it should n't be illegal .
It 's quite reasonable to make illegal some specific activities that drastically increase the probability of a fatal incident .
Endangering the lives of others around you is wrong .
The motive behind the law is to prevent accidents through active punishment and awareness of the law .
I frequently disagree with the police , but that seems like a fairly reasonable and justified strategy to me .
On the other hand , waiting until afterwards is a bad idea .
What 's the use in punishing people then ?
Revenge ? By that stage they 've already learned their lesson ; perhaps at the cost someone else 's life , or their own .
That 's too little , too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to point this gun at your head for a while.
Unless I pull the trigger, it shouldn't be illegal.
It's quite reasonable to make illegal some specific activities that drastically increase the probability of a fatal incident.
Endangering the lives of others around you is wrong.
The motive behind the law is to prevent accidents through active punishment and awareness of the law.
I frequently disagree with the police, but that seems like a fairly reasonable and justified strategy to me.
On the other hand, waiting until afterwards is a bad idea.
What's the use in punishing people then?
Revenge?  By that stage they've already learned their lesson; perhaps at the cost someone else's life, or their own.
That's too little, too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415936</id>
	<title>If it's truly more dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We only need to wait on a little natural selection to kick in for the usage to drop.</p><p>

Just kidding - start enforcing the law!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We only need to wait on a little natural selection to kick in for the usage to drop .
Just kidding - start enforcing the law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We only need to wait on a little natural selection to kick in for the usage to drop.
Just kidding - start enforcing the law!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</id>
	<title>Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising ?
Strange as it may see , most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine .
Who can say why this takes place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising?
Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.
Who can say why this takes place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30431674</id>
	<title>Cell Phones' aren't the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260809280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several states now that don&rsquo;t allow you to talk on your cell phone while driving. Studies have shown that talking on the phone is a distraction from doing what you&rsquo;re supposed to be doing, piloting your vehicle. My argument against these laws is that there&rsquo;s already laws on the books that allow a police officer to pull you over if you&rsquo;re driving poorly. Ever heard of Reckless Driving? If you&rsquo;re being reckless, a cop can already site you with a moving violation. The cause of reckless driving isn&rsquo;t important, it&rsquo;s that you&rsquo;re BEING reckless. Many of the states with &ldquo;no cell phone&rdquo; laws make an exception as long as you&rsquo;re using a hands-free device. That doesn&rsquo;t make much sense. The studies didn&rsquo;t find that HOLDING a phone causes a distraction, TALKING on the phone is the distraction. Those same studies showed that whether you&rsquo;re holding a phone to your ear, talking into a speaker phone, or using a wireless headset, the chance of you being distracted from your driving is the same. So, if the only issue is DISTRACTION, how can we legislate that? If we can make laws banning cell phones because of the distraction we&rsquo;d need to outlaw food, music, coffee, maps, screaming kids, and pets to be consistent. Everything you do in a car other than driving is a distraction. The cellphone is just the latest scapegoat for the real issue out on the road &ndash; PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Our law enforcement should spend more time enforcing the laws we already have (like reckless driving) instead of adding more laws to our already complicated law books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several states now that don    t allow you to talk on your cell phone while driving .
Studies have shown that talking on the phone is a distraction from doing what you    re supposed to be doing , piloting your vehicle .
My argument against these laws is that there    s already laws on the books that allow a police officer to pull you over if you    re driving poorly .
Ever heard of Reckless Driving ?
If you    re being reckless , a cop can already site you with a moving violation .
The cause of reckless driving isn    t important , it    s that you    re BEING reckless .
Many of the states with    no cell phone    laws make an exception as long as you    re using a hands-free device .
That doesn    t make much sense .
The studies didn    t find that HOLDING a phone causes a distraction , TALKING on the phone is the distraction .
Those same studies showed that whether you    re holding a phone to your ear , talking into a speaker phone , or using a wireless headset , the chance of you being distracted from your driving is the same .
So , if the only issue is DISTRACTION , how can we legislate that ?
If we can make laws banning cell phones because of the distraction we    d need to outlaw food , music , coffee , maps , screaming kids , and pets to be consistent .
Everything you do in a car other than driving is a distraction .
The cellphone is just the latest scapegoat for the real issue out on the road    PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION .
Our law enforcement should spend more time enforcing the laws we already have ( like reckless driving ) instead of adding more laws to our already complicated law books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several states now that don’t allow you to talk on your cell phone while driving.
Studies have shown that talking on the phone is a distraction from doing what you’re supposed to be doing, piloting your vehicle.
My argument against these laws is that there’s already laws on the books that allow a police officer to pull you over if you’re driving poorly.
Ever heard of Reckless Driving?
If you’re being reckless, a cop can already site you with a moving violation.
The cause of reckless driving isn’t important, it’s that you’re BEING reckless.
Many of the states with “no cell phone” laws make an exception as long as you’re using a hands-free device.
That doesn’t make much sense.
The studies didn’t find that HOLDING a phone causes a distraction, TALKING on the phone is the distraction.
Those same studies showed that whether you’re holding a phone to your ear, talking into a speaker phone, or using a wireless headset, the chance of you being distracted from your driving is the same.
So, if the only issue is DISTRACTION, how can we legislate that?
If we can make laws banning cell phones because of the distraction we’d need to outlaw food, music, coffee, maps, screaming kids, and pets to be consistent.
Everything you do in a car other than driving is a distraction.
The cellphone is just the latest scapegoat for the real issue out on the road – PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Our law enforcement should spend more time enforcing the laws we already have (like reckless driving) instead of adding more laws to our already complicated law books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416558</id>
	<title>Other solutions</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1260651300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Federally de-fund roads and make transportation private - all of it.  The Federal Government has decided what our primary form of transportation is by dumping trillions into a road system.  If they stopped dishing out all those tax dollars to public transportation and, at the very least, simultaneously deregulated rail, then we would see a huge boon in other more efficient types of transportation.  This would substantially reduce such problems as texting while driving.  It would also reduce pollution and shipping costs - and thus the cost of the goods being shipped.  For example, I work in the importing business and it is currently less expensive to ship a container of goods from Los Angeles to Dallas via truck than rail, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever except for the fact that the Government controls the laying of rail and unions control the rail already laid.</p><p>I ride a motorcycle and I can see quite well into other vehicles on the road, and my observation is that here in the SF Bay Area there has been no reduction in cell phone usage while driving since the passage of the various laws.  I think that, if anything, the laws have made it more dangerous because drivers who probably are not competent to drive and talk are now also trying to avoid getting caught on the phone by the po-po.</p><p>I had completely forgotten about the law and I was calling someone on craigslist to arrange picking up a filing cabinet.  I arrived at his house and there was nobody home, so I called him and he told me to "just a sec.  I'm trying to avoid this cop - I don't want him to see me."  And I'm like, dude, I'm just here for the filing cabinet....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Federally de-fund roads and make transportation private - all of it .
The Federal Government has decided what our primary form of transportation is by dumping trillions into a road system .
If they stopped dishing out all those tax dollars to public transportation and , at the very least , simultaneously deregulated rail , then we would see a huge boon in other more efficient types of transportation .
This would substantially reduce such problems as texting while driving .
It would also reduce pollution and shipping costs - and thus the cost of the goods being shipped .
For example , I work in the importing business and it is currently less expensive to ship a container of goods from Los Angeles to Dallas via truck than rail , which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever except for the fact that the Government controls the laying of rail and unions control the rail already laid.I ride a motorcycle and I can see quite well into other vehicles on the road , and my observation is that here in the SF Bay Area there has been no reduction in cell phone usage while driving since the passage of the various laws .
I think that , if anything , the laws have made it more dangerous because drivers who probably are not competent to drive and talk are now also trying to avoid getting caught on the phone by the po-po.I had completely forgotten about the law and I was calling someone on craigslist to arrange picking up a filing cabinet .
I arrived at his house and there was nobody home , so I called him and he told me to " just a sec .
I 'm trying to avoid this cop - I do n't want him to see me .
" And I 'm like , dude , I 'm just here for the filing cabinet... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Federally de-fund roads and make transportation private - all of it.
The Federal Government has decided what our primary form of transportation is by dumping trillions into a road system.
If they stopped dishing out all those tax dollars to public transportation and, at the very least, simultaneously deregulated rail, then we would see a huge boon in other more efficient types of transportation.
This would substantially reduce such problems as texting while driving.
It would also reduce pollution and shipping costs - and thus the cost of the goods being shipped.
For example, I work in the importing business and it is currently less expensive to ship a container of goods from Los Angeles to Dallas via truck than rail, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever except for the fact that the Government controls the laying of rail and unions control the rail already laid.I ride a motorcycle and I can see quite well into other vehicles on the road, and my observation is that here in the SF Bay Area there has been no reduction in cell phone usage while driving since the passage of the various laws.
I think that, if anything, the laws have made it more dangerous because drivers who probably are not competent to drive and talk are now also trying to avoid getting caught on the phone by the po-po.I had completely forgotten about the law and I was calling someone on craigslist to arrange picking up a filing cabinet.
I arrived at his house and there was nobody home, so I called him and he told me to "just a sec.
I'm trying to avoid this cop - I don't want him to see me.
"  And I'm like, dude, I'm just here for the filing cabinet....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416534</id>
	<title>clearly</title>
	<author>naeone</author>
	<datestamp>1260651120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>clearly the public perception of the danger is lesser than the systems perception of the offence. that is to say that those that talk and drive mostly havent killed anyone (yet). thus its hard toi get it into there head that it might be dangerous. more people have died the year due to swine (mexican) flu this year than have died due to mobile phone use . and nobody thinks swine flu is a danger on the roads</htmltext>
<tokenext>clearly the public perception of the danger is lesser than the systems perception of the offence .
that is to say that those that talk and drive mostly havent killed anyone ( yet ) .
thus its hard toi get it into there head that it might be dangerous .
more people have died the year due to swine ( mexican ) flu this year than have died due to mobile phone use .
and nobody thinks swine flu is a danger on the roads</tokentext>
<sentencetext>clearly the public perception of the danger is lesser than the systems perception of the offence.
that is to say that those that talk and drive mostly havent killed anyone (yet).
thus its hard toi get it into there head that it might be dangerous.
more people have died the year due to swine (mexican) flu this year than have died due to mobile phone use .
and nobody thinks swine flu is a danger on the roads</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416052</id>
	<title>Use the same penalties as DUI</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1260648120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this case you are driving under the influence of an electronic device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case you are driving under the influence of an electronic device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case you are driving under the influence of an electronic device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417004</id>
	<title>Re:LA may be better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260610860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the ban, out on the westside in LA I still notice too many people holding a phone to their heads while doing things like changing lanes, turning corners at very busy intersections, and trying to run over pedestrians in crosswalks.  One thing I notice more is people holding phones in front of them rather than next to their ears, as if they somehow think crappy speakerphone mode constitutes hands-free even as it occupies their hand.  Maybe you are right though... if the smart people have adapted to the laws with bluetooth headsets, then all I see now are the true morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the ban , out on the westside in LA I still notice too many people holding a phone to their heads while doing things like changing lanes , turning corners at very busy intersections , and trying to run over pedestrians in crosswalks .
One thing I notice more is people holding phones in front of them rather than next to their ears , as if they somehow think crappy speakerphone mode constitutes hands-free even as it occupies their hand .
Maybe you are right though... if the smart people have adapted to the laws with bluetooth headsets , then all I see now are the true morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the ban, out on the westside in LA I still notice too many people holding a phone to their heads while doing things like changing lanes, turning corners at very busy intersections, and trying to run over pedestrians in crosswalks.
One thing I notice more is people holding phones in front of them rather than next to their ears, as if they somehow think crappy speakerphone mode constitutes hands-free even as it occupies their hand.
Maybe you are right though... if the smart people have adapted to the laws with bluetooth headsets, then all I see now are the true morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418190</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260619860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about also painting the car they were in lavender with bright pink spots.  And make them pay for it.  And forbid the car being repainted for 3 years.  (That'd do interesting things to it's resale value.  But maybe you should just forbid them from driving any other car...though there enforcement would, again, be a problem.  So just forbid them from buying or renting any other car for 3 years.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about also painting the car they were in lavender with bright pink spots .
And make them pay for it .
And forbid the car being repainted for 3 years .
( That 'd do interesting things to it 's resale value .
But maybe you should just forbid them from driving any other car...though there enforcement would , again , be a problem .
So just forbid them from buying or renting any other car for 3 years .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about also painting the car they were in lavender with bright pink spots.
And make them pay for it.
And forbid the car being repainted for 3 years.
(That'd do interesting things to it's resale value.
But maybe you should just forbid them from driving any other car...though there enforcement would, again, be a problem.
So just forbid them from buying or renting any other car for 3 years.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416300</id>
	<title>Personal observations</title>
	<author>grumling</author>
	<datestamp>1260649860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it every time I see a cop they're on the cell phone?</p><p>The best thing I did to improve my driving cellphone-wise was set my Blackberry to no alert on email when holstered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it every time I see a cop they 're on the cell phone ? The best thing I did to improve my driving cellphone-wise was set my Blackberry to no alert on email when holstered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it every time I see a cop they're on the cell phone?The best thing I did to improve my driving cellphone-wise was set my Blackberry to no alert on email when holstered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</id>
	<title>Prohibit children</title>
	<author>crdotson</author>
	<datestamp>1260646860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they're going about it all wrong.  Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience.  I can't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; London should prohibit driving with children in the car.  It's an inconvenience for parents, but it's a safety issue.  Likewise car radios should be banned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 're going about it all wrong .
Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience .
I ca n't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier , etc .
          London should prohibit driving with children in the car .
It 's an inconvenience for parents , but it 's a safety issue .
Likewise car radios should be banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they're going about it all wrong.
Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience.
I can't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier, etc.
          London should prohibit driving with children in the car.
It's an inconvenience for parents, but it's a safety issue.
Likewise car radios should be banned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416642</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1260608640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People convince themselves that they can drive just fine drunk, talking on a cell phone, and doing their makeup because they WANT to believe it.<br>
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People convince themselves that they can drive just fine drunk , talking on a cell phone , and doing their makeup because they WANT to believe it .
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People convince themselves that they can drive just fine drunk, talking on a cell phone, and doing their makeup because they WANT to believe it.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30420550</id>
	<title>Show the Injuries</title>
	<author>Killer Eye</author>
	<datestamp>1260644640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that people need to see the effects of accidents in order for it to truly register.  (Heck, do this for other serious stuff, too, like the casualties of wars.)  Making it cost "more money" to drive dangerously is basically sugar-coating, hiding the very real risks.</p><p>There should be ads in prime time that show accident victims whose lives have been turned upside down.  Show people who can no longer walk, or who lost limbs, or who lost family members.  Make it clear that it was drunk driving, or cell phones, or whatever, that led to their demise.</p><p>Too many ignorant people seem to think that the world is a heck of a lot nicer than it really is.  That ignorance continues when they get behind the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that people need to see the effects of accidents in order for it to truly register .
( Heck , do this for other serious stuff , too , like the casualties of wars .
) Making it cost " more money " to drive dangerously is basically sugar-coating , hiding the very real risks.There should be ads in prime time that show accident victims whose lives have been turned upside down .
Show people who can no longer walk , or who lost limbs , or who lost family members .
Make it clear that it was drunk driving , or cell phones , or whatever , that led to their demise.Too many ignorant people seem to think that the world is a heck of a lot nicer than it really is .
That ignorance continues when they get behind the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that people need to see the effects of accidents in order for it to truly register.
(Heck, do this for other serious stuff, too, like the casualties of wars.
)  Making it cost "more money" to drive dangerously is basically sugar-coating, hiding the very real risks.There should be ads in prime time that show accident victims whose lives have been turned upside down.
Show people who can no longer walk, or who lost limbs, or who lost family members.
Make it clear that it was drunk driving, or cell phones, or whatever, that led to their demise.Too many ignorant people seem to think that the world is a heck of a lot nicer than it really is.
That ignorance continues when they get behind the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314</id>
	<title>Big Surprise</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1260649920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes? You might as well fine people for disregarding the "Wet Floor/Piso Mojado" sign.<br> <br>Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes ?
You might as well fine people for disregarding the " Wet Floor/Piso Mojado " sign .
Do n't get me wrong , if you run over someone because you were texting , you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most ( assuming no ill intentions ) , but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else 's property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes?
You might as well fine people for disregarding the "Wet Floor/Piso Mojado" sign.
Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416946</id>
	<title>Does not supprise me.</title>
	<author>dontcrossme</author>
	<datestamp>1260610560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see at least 10-30 people on their cellphone while driving.  I would have to say about 2-5 times while passing a cop.  NOTHING happens.  How do you expect a change when its not enforced.  Increase the fine so its worth it for the cop to write the ticked.  In court it can only be 1 warning then tickets after that.  ENFORCE THE LAW COPS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see at least 10-30 people on their cellphone while driving .
I would have to say about 2-5 times while passing a cop .
NOTHING happens .
How do you expect a change when its not enforced .
Increase the fine so its worth it for the cop to write the ticked .
In court it can only be 1 warning then tickets after that .
ENFORCE THE LAW COPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see at least 10-30 people on their cellphone while driving.
I would have to say about 2-5 times while passing a cop.
NOTHING happens.
How do you expect a change when its not enforced.
Increase the fine so its worth it for the cop to write the ticked.
In court it can only be 1 warning then tickets after that.
ENFORCE THE LAW COPS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418232</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You definition of "victimless crimes" and mine differ significantly.  OTOH, I agree, it should just be classified as reckless driving, and no special law should be needed.</p><p>But when someone presents a "clear and present danger", as does anyone who is talking on a cell-phone while driving, then that's not a victimless crime.  They are denying everyone else the right to a relatively safe road even before they have an accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You definition of " victimless crimes " and mine differ significantly .
OTOH , I agree , it should just be classified as reckless driving , and no special law should be needed.But when someone presents a " clear and present danger " , as does anyone who is talking on a cell-phone while driving , then that 's not a victimless crime .
They are denying everyone else the right to a relatively safe road even before they have an accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You definition of "victimless crimes" and mine differ significantly.
OTOH, I agree, it should just be classified as reckless driving, and no special law should be needed.But when someone presents a "clear and present danger", as does anyone who is talking on a cell-phone while driving, then that's not a victimless crime.
They are denying everyone else the right to a relatively safe road even before they have an accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417008</id>
	<title>Not a fine, but a fee</title>
	<author>ksd1337</author>
	<datestamp>1260610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason this doesn't work is because people start to consider the fine as a type of fee for using your cell phone while driving. They will feel that if they pay the fine, they will be able to use their cell phones on the road.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason this does n't work is because people start to consider the fine as a type of fee for using your cell phone while driving .
They will feel that if they pay the fine , they will be able to use their cell phones on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason this doesn't work is because people start to consider the fine as a type of fee for using your cell phone while driving.
They will feel that if they pay the fine, they will be able to use their cell phones on the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416454</id>
	<title>Cell Phones = Boogeyman</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260650700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger.  But so do myriad other things (eating a Whopper, smoking, smacking the kids around, having just one drink, etc.) and those are not singled out for prosecution.</p><p>So the inevitable conclusion is that it's not about safety, it's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue.  And nobody respects that.</p><p>It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous.  But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.</p><p>How about if somebody crashes they're fully liable?  That would make people actually re-consider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger .
But so do myriad other things ( eating a Whopper , smoking , smacking the kids around , having just one drink , etc .
) and those are not singled out for prosecution.So the inevitable conclusion is that it 's not about safety , it 's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue .
And nobody respects that.It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous .
But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.How about if somebody crashes they 're fully liable ?
That would make people actually re-consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger.
But so do myriad other things (eating a Whopper, smoking, smacking the kids around, having just one drink, etc.
) and those are not singled out for prosecution.So the inevitable conclusion is that it's not about safety, it's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue.
And nobody respects that.It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous.
But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.How about if somebody crashes they're fully liable?
That would make people actually re-consider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30420788</id>
	<title>Enforcement</title>
	<author>iviagnus</author>
	<datestamp>1260646980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If motorists won't abide by the law, then enforce it through hardware. Built-in (vehicle-only-area) cellular jamming hardware could enforce cell-phone compliance while the vehicle is in motion.  Only after being placed in park would the jamming device allow calls to be made. A signal on a seperate frequency could indicate an incoming call by chiming. The motorist would still have to stop the vehicle to actually take the call.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If motorists wo n't abide by the law , then enforce it through hardware .
Built-in ( vehicle-only-area ) cellular jamming hardware could enforce cell-phone compliance while the vehicle is in motion .
Only after being placed in park would the jamming device allow calls to be made .
A signal on a seperate frequency could indicate an incoming call by chiming .
The motorist would still have to stop the vehicle to actually take the call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If motorists won't abide by the law, then enforce it through hardware.
Built-in (vehicle-only-area) cellular jamming hardware could enforce cell-phone compliance while the vehicle is in motion.
Only after being placed in park would the jamming device allow calls to be made.
A signal on a seperate frequency could indicate an incoming call by chiming.
The motorist would still have to stop the vehicle to actually take the call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417856</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad you're alright.  Don't forget that defensive driving techniques can go a long way, too.  Drive the speed limit, give yourself plenty of room behind other cars, don't drive coasting next to another car, make small adjustments to your speed to let people in other lanes pass you more quickly, slow down slightly if someone drives too close behind you so that they will pass you, and before going through a green light check both sides for potential red light runners.  I've found that once I started doing all this while driving, I found myself getting into fewer close calls on the road.  Yes, a lot of this involves driving slower (speed limit speeds), but if you drive the same speed as the bad drivers you will be spending more time in proximity to them, increasing your chance of an accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad you 're alright .
Do n't forget that defensive driving techniques can go a long way , too .
Drive the speed limit , give yourself plenty of room behind other cars , do n't drive coasting next to another car , make small adjustments to your speed to let people in other lanes pass you more quickly , slow down slightly if someone drives too close behind you so that they will pass you , and before going through a green light check both sides for potential red light runners .
I 've found that once I started doing all this while driving , I found myself getting into fewer close calls on the road .
Yes , a lot of this involves driving slower ( speed limit speeds ) , but if you drive the same speed as the bad drivers you will be spending more time in proximity to them , increasing your chance of an accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad you're alright.
Don't forget that defensive driving techniques can go a long way, too.
Drive the speed limit, give yourself plenty of room behind other cars, don't drive coasting next to another car, make small adjustments to your speed to let people in other lanes pass you more quickly, slow down slightly if someone drives too close behind you so that they will pass you, and before going through a green light check both sides for potential red light runners.
I've found that once I started doing all this while driving, I found myself getting into fewer close calls on the road.
Yes, a lot of this involves driving slower (speed limit speeds), but if you drive the same speed as the bad drivers you will be spending more time in proximity to them, increasing your chance of an accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416200</id>
	<title>No Problem</title>
	<author>no-body</author>
	<datestamp>1260649320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule to survive:</p><p>If you see somebody driving erratic, keep extra distance behind, then try to pass quickly and check cellphone-use. If positive, take note.</p><p>Keeping a tab on positive will quickly convince you that</p><p>a - It's a dangerous world out there<br>b - Darwin's law of survival... holds true<br>c - Politicians are stupid (CO no-phone-use-in cars was watered down to no-messaging-while-driving)</p><p><a href="http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201\_cell\_danger.html" title="livescience.com">http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201\_cell\_danger.html</a> [livescience.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule to survive : If you see somebody driving erratic , keep extra distance behind , then try to pass quickly and check cellphone-use .
If positive , take note.Keeping a tab on positive will quickly convince you thata - It 's a dangerous world out thereb - Darwin 's law of survival... holds truec - Politicians are stupid ( CO no-phone-use-in cars was watered down to no-messaging-while-driving ) http : //www.livescience.com/technology/050201 \ _cell \ _danger.html [ livescience.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule to survive:If you see somebody driving erratic, keep extra distance behind, then try to pass quickly and check cellphone-use.
If positive, take note.Keeping a tab on positive will quickly convince you thata - It's a dangerous world out thereb - Darwin's law of survival... holds truec - Politicians are stupid (CO no-phone-use-in cars was watered down to no-messaging-while-driving)http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201\_cell\_danger.html [livescience.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416718</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>KiloByte</author>
	<datestamp>1260609240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Texting while driving is not merely using a cellphone.  Try to drive and use a fiddly little keypad at the same time.  It's not merely distraction, it's attempted murder.</p><p>Here in Poland, there's large popular support for a lifetime driving ban for anyone who causes an accident while DUI.  I'd support the same for idiots texting behind the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Texting while driving is not merely using a cellphone .
Try to drive and use a fiddly little keypad at the same time .
It 's not merely distraction , it 's attempted murder.Here in Poland , there 's large popular support for a lifetime driving ban for anyone who causes an accident while DUI .
I 'd support the same for idiots texting behind the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Texting while driving is not merely using a cellphone.
Try to drive and use a fiddly little keypad at the same time.
It's not merely distraction, it's attempted murder.Here in Poland, there's large popular support for a lifetime driving ban for anyone who causes an accident while DUI.
I'd support the same for idiots texting behind the wheel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417790</id>
	<title>Times</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260616560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, times have changed a lot. "Society" is no longer the thing you live in, it's the thing you have to put up with when you leave the house.</p><p>Quite frankly, unless something dramatic changes and people respect the rules again, we need <b>massively</b> improved enforcement, <b>especially</b> on the small rules. Ignoring the "no smoking" sign, talking on the phone while driving - these are minor crimes, but they instill disrespect for others and society in people. Heck, that's not a theory, it's been tested and proven correct several times.</p><p>I see smokers ignoring the "no smoking" signs every day on my way to work. That's a good example because it creates actual, physical harm on others, not just potential danger.<br>I'm not for harsher fines. In fact, I think moderate fines are much better. But they need to be enforced. Strictly and reliably. A $10,000 fine coupled with a 0.1\% chance of being caught may be mathematically identical to a $100 fine and a 10\% chance to be caught, but people's actual reactions to the scenarios are vastly different (again, there's been research on that, I'm just too lazy to walk over to the book shelves).</p><p>Make "enforcement days". Send police officers or even temps out on those days with the express goal of catching <b>every single one</b> who talks on the phone or texts while driving. Do that every month or two. The fines collected will almost certainly pay for the whole operation. After the 2nd or 3rd time caught, lots of people will reconsider. And those with a severe learning disability will pay for the next operations.</p><p>And as I said, if you think police officers are too valuable to be wasted on making the roads safer, hire temp workers for the job. Photographs with both the driver and the license plate visible would probably do, after all they do for speeding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , times have changed a lot .
" Society " is no longer the thing you live in , it 's the thing you have to put up with when you leave the house.Quite frankly , unless something dramatic changes and people respect the rules again , we need massively improved enforcement , especially on the small rules .
Ignoring the " no smoking " sign , talking on the phone while driving - these are minor crimes , but they instill disrespect for others and society in people .
Heck , that 's not a theory , it 's been tested and proven correct several times.I see smokers ignoring the " no smoking " signs every day on my way to work .
That 's a good example because it creates actual , physical harm on others , not just potential danger.I 'm not for harsher fines .
In fact , I think moderate fines are much better .
But they need to be enforced .
Strictly and reliably .
A $ 10,000 fine coupled with a 0.1 \ % chance of being caught may be mathematically identical to a $ 100 fine and a 10 \ % chance to be caught , but people 's actual reactions to the scenarios are vastly different ( again , there 's been research on that , I 'm just too lazy to walk over to the book shelves ) .Make " enforcement days " .
Send police officers or even temps out on those days with the express goal of catching every single one who talks on the phone or texts while driving .
Do that every month or two .
The fines collected will almost certainly pay for the whole operation .
After the 2nd or 3rd time caught , lots of people will reconsider .
And those with a severe learning disability will pay for the next operations.And as I said , if you think police officers are too valuable to be wasted on making the roads safer , hire temp workers for the job .
Photographs with both the driver and the license plate visible would probably do , after all they do for speeding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, times have changed a lot.
"Society" is no longer the thing you live in, it's the thing you have to put up with when you leave the house.Quite frankly, unless something dramatic changes and people respect the rules again, we need massively improved enforcement, especially on the small rules.
Ignoring the "no smoking" sign, talking on the phone while driving - these are minor crimes, but they instill disrespect for others and society in people.
Heck, that's not a theory, it's been tested and proven correct several times.I see smokers ignoring the "no smoking" signs every day on my way to work.
That's a good example because it creates actual, physical harm on others, not just potential danger.I'm not for harsher fines.
In fact, I think moderate fines are much better.
But they need to be enforced.
Strictly and reliably.
A $10,000 fine coupled with a 0.1\% chance of being caught may be mathematically identical to a $100 fine and a 10\% chance to be caught, but people's actual reactions to the scenarios are vastly different (again, there's been research on that, I'm just too lazy to walk over to the book shelves).Make "enforcement days".
Send police officers or even temps out on those days with the express goal of catching every single one who talks on the phone or texts while driving.
Do that every month or two.
The fines collected will almost certainly pay for the whole operation.
After the 2nd or 3rd time caught, lots of people will reconsider.
And those with a severe learning disability will pay for the next operations.And as I said, if you think police officers are too valuable to be wasted on making the roads safer, hire temp workers for the job.
Photographs with both the driver and the license plate visible would probably do, after all they do for speeding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415880</id>
	<title>Using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous</title>
	<author>VinylRecords</author>
	<datestamp>1260646680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using my I-Phone right now to ma</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using my I-Phone right now to ma</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using my I-Phone right now to ma</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30419002</id>
	<title>Maybe Its Because...</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1260630180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who can walk and chew gum at the same time realize that they have what it takes to increase their vigilence concerning their immediate surroundings, and can talk to someone outside the car and not crash like they can talk to someone inside the car and not crash.  Some people shouldn't be driving at all, and these shouldn't be talking to either their phones or their passengers, but for the rest of us, we know its BS and continue to remain available and maybe even keep in touch by making a call or 2 when it's safe to drive with 1 hand.</p><p>As for the legal thing, we can see from the previous boneheaded law that nobody believed in but simply generated a pile of cash in fines of perfectly safe motorists, the 55 mph speed limit was also near-universially ignored by the motoring public and in some places even by the cops.  You can't always simply pass a law and expect the sheeple to suffer willingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who can walk and chew gum at the same time realize that they have what it takes to increase their vigilence concerning their immediate surroundings , and can talk to someone outside the car and not crash like they can talk to someone inside the car and not crash .
Some people should n't be driving at all , and these should n't be talking to either their phones or their passengers , but for the rest of us , we know its BS and continue to remain available and maybe even keep in touch by making a call or 2 when it 's safe to drive with 1 hand.As for the legal thing , we can see from the previous boneheaded law that nobody believed in but simply generated a pile of cash in fines of perfectly safe motorists , the 55 mph speed limit was also near-universially ignored by the motoring public and in some places even by the cops .
You ca n't always simply pass a law and expect the sheeple to suffer willingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who can walk and chew gum at the same time realize that they have what it takes to increase their vigilence concerning their immediate surroundings, and can talk to someone outside the car and not crash like they can talk to someone inside the car and not crash.
Some people shouldn't be driving at all, and these shouldn't be talking to either their phones or their passengers, but for the rest of us, we know its BS and continue to remain available and maybe even keep in touch by making a call or 2 when it's safe to drive with 1 hand.As for the legal thing, we can see from the previous boneheaded law that nobody believed in but simply generated a pile of cash in fines of perfectly safe motorists, the 55 mph speed limit was also near-universially ignored by the motoring public and in some places even by the cops.
You can't always simply pass a law and expect the sheeple to suffer willingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416692</id>
	<title>Since when...</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1260609000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...has prohibition *ever* worked?</p><p>If cell phones were as dangerous as people like to make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...has prohibition * ever * worked ? If cell phones were as dangerous as people like to make them out to be , accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...has prohibition *ever* worked?If cell phones were as dangerous as people like to make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416088</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1260648360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?</p></div><p>Man, what alternate universe do you live in? Whichever it is, I want to go there--a large percentage of the people in my universe don't seem to respond to any sort of fact, scientific or otherwise. Only a cold, hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising ?
Strange as it may see , most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine .
Who can say why this takes place ? Man , what alternate universe do you live in ?
Whichever it is , I want to go there--a large percentage of the people in my universe do n't seem to respond to any sort of fact , scientific or otherwise .
Only a cold , hard dose of reality ( such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway ) ever gets through to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising?
Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.
Who can say why this takes place?Man, what alternate universe do you live in?
Whichever it is, I want to go there--a large percentage of the people in my universe don't seem to respond to any sort of fact, scientific or otherwise.
Only a cold, hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30419464</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confiscate the phone, confiscate the car.  They were operating the phone just fine, but the car on the other hand...</p><p>Then they can use the phone to call someone to pick them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confiscate the phone , confiscate the car .
They were operating the phone just fine , but the car on the other hand...Then they can use the phone to call someone to pick them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confiscate the phone, confiscate the car.
They were operating the phone just fine, but the car on the other hand...Then they can use the phone to call someone to pick them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417016</id>
	<title>Re:Technology vs technology</title>
	<author>dotgain</author>
	<datestamp>1260610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's such a <b>terrible</b> idea you should actually seek medical advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's such a terrible idea you should actually seek medical advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's such a terrible idea you should actually seek medical advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416726</id>
	<title>Re:Prohibit children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260609360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course risk must be balanced against value.</p><p>However, as far as cell phone use goes, studies indicate that a hands-free set does not lower the risk, and it seems a regular chat with a passanger is similarly dangerous. I'd venture to guess that eating a meal while driving is at least as dangerous.</p><p>Bottom line: the driver should not be distracted from driving by anything if safety were the only concern. My opinion, however, is that there are concerns other than safety, and that's why we can't expect people to stop driving with children or chatting with a passanger. In fact, I would say cell phones are so useful that I would like the laws to allow them while driving despite the elevated risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course risk must be balanced against value.However , as far as cell phone use goes , studies indicate that a hands-free set does not lower the risk , and it seems a regular chat with a passanger is similarly dangerous .
I 'd venture to guess that eating a meal while driving is at least as dangerous.Bottom line : the driver should not be distracted from driving by anything if safety were the only concern .
My opinion , however , is that there are concerns other than safety , and that 's why we ca n't expect people to stop driving with children or chatting with a passanger .
In fact , I would say cell phones are so useful that I would like the laws to allow them while driving despite the elevated risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course risk must be balanced against value.However, as far as cell phone use goes, studies indicate that a hands-free set does not lower the risk, and it seems a regular chat with a passanger is similarly dangerous.
I'd venture to guess that eating a meal while driving is at least as dangerous.Bottom line: the driver should not be distracted from driving by anything if safety were the only concern.
My opinion, however, is that there are concerns other than safety, and that's why we can't expect people to stop driving with children or chatting with a passanger.
In fact, I would say cell phones are so useful that I would like the laws to allow them while driving despite the elevated risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417466</id>
	<title>Have the cellphone report speed and direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once GPS is universal, have cellphones that are in use report any speed above posted limits for an instant zero-tolerance ticket. This would seriously reduce the number of cellphones in use on the roads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once GPS is universal , have cellphones that are in use report any speed above posted limits for an instant zero-tolerance ticket .
This would seriously reduce the number of cellphones in use on the roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once GPS is universal, have cellphones that are in use report any speed above posted limits for an instant zero-tolerance ticket.
This would seriously reduce the number of cellphones in use on the roads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416398</id>
	<title>Talk to live</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260650400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Live to talk.</p><p>Social contact is more important than life itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live to talk.Social contact is more important than life itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live to talk.Social contact is more important than life itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422692</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>evilninjax</author>
	<datestamp>1260721080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you hate Tiger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you hate Tiger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you hate Tiger?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418072</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>EsbenMoseHansen</author>
	<datestamp>1260618840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner.</p></div><p>If you want painful, I think 80mph is a bit high, they are likely to just get killed instantly. Just a tip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
</p><p>Ok, I should go to bed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner.If you want painful , I think 80mph is a bit high , they are likely to just get killed instantly .
Just a tip ; ) Ok , I should go to bed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner.If you want painful, I think 80mph is a bit high, they are likely to just get killed instantly.
Just a tip ;)
Ok, I should go to bed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417756</id>
	<title>Re:Texting and driving</title>
	<author>Stiletto</author>
	<datestamp>1260616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call shenanigans!</p><p>How do you know he was texting if he was going 70mph, it was the middle of the night, and you ended up in a ditch (presumably not able to follow and identify the person or his activities).  How do you even know it was a teenager, or that it was a "he"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call shenanigans ! How do you know he was texting if he was going 70mph , it was the middle of the night , and you ended up in a ditch ( presumably not able to follow and identify the person or his activities ) .
How do you even know it was a teenager , or that it was a " he " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call shenanigans!How do you know he was texting if he was going 70mph, it was the middle of the night, and you ended up in a ditch (presumably not able to follow and identify the person or his activities).
How do you even know it was a teenager, or that it was a "he"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417062</id>
	<title>Another pointless law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260611220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've driven for 13 years and many times with a cell phone, a burger, coughing, sneezing, changing and other as you would put it "dangerous" activities. I've never hit anyone while driving safe or "unsafe."</p><p>It truly does boil down to education of driving aware of your surroundings.</p><p>I don't need some law nazi telling me I can use a cell phone while driving if I'm truly not driving any more dangerously.</p><p>And if you're still not goiing to agree, then consider this. We already have a law against driving recklessly. Shouldn't that cover activities such as poor driving with cell phone use? Let's nail people who are negligent with their driving: not just any Joe taking a phone call while in the car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've driven for 13 years and many times with a cell phone , a burger , coughing , sneezing , changing and other as you would put it " dangerous " activities .
I 've never hit anyone while driving safe or " unsafe .
" It truly does boil down to education of driving aware of your surroundings.I do n't need some law nazi telling me I can use a cell phone while driving if I 'm truly not driving any more dangerously.And if you 're still not goiing to agree , then consider this .
We already have a law against driving recklessly .
Should n't that cover activities such as poor driving with cell phone use ?
Let 's nail people who are negligent with their driving : not just any Joe taking a phone call while in the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've driven for 13 years and many times with a cell phone, a burger, coughing, sneezing, changing and other as you would put it "dangerous" activities.
I've never hit anyone while driving safe or "unsafe.
"It truly does boil down to education of driving aware of your surroundings.I don't need some law nazi telling me I can use a cell phone while driving if I'm truly not driving any more dangerously.And if you're still not goiing to agree, then consider this.
We already have a law against driving recklessly.
Shouldn't that cover activities such as poor driving with cell phone use?
Let's nail people who are negligent with their driving: not just any Joe taking a phone call while in the car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418084</id>
	<title>Risk Homeostasis?</title>
	<author>z4ce</author>
	<datestamp>1260618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number of cell phones in use as exponentially increased in the last decade. Where is the graph showing fatalities going through the roof due to this? Oh whats that? They've actually slightly went down?</p><p>Maybe its not such a big deal after all. Maybe the government should just.. ya know.. do nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of cell phones in use as exponentially increased in the last decade .
Where is the graph showing fatalities going through the roof due to this ?
Oh whats that ?
They 've actually slightly went down ? Maybe its not such a big deal after all .
Maybe the government should just.. ya know.. do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of cell phones in use as exponentially increased in the last decade.
Where is the graph showing fatalities going through the roof due to this?
Oh whats that?
They've actually slightly went down?Maybe its not such a big deal after all.
Maybe the government should just.. ya know.. do nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415758</id>
	<title>It's not the fines....</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260645780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the enforcement.  We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random.  Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law.  If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the enforcement .
We have really , really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations , but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random .
Your chances of getting caught are miniscule , so people learn to ignore the law .
If they do get caught , the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the enforcement.
We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random.
Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law.
If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417236</id>
	<title>It's b/c we live in an age of instant contact</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1260612360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody remember the days before call-waiting?  Y'know the days when you called someone and if they were on it you'd get this thing called a <i>busy signal</i>?  We live in an age where we expect people to be able to be in instant contact.  I sent you a text message, you get it instantly.  We IM people on the computer.  Creating mobile phones allows us to call someone (or be called by someone) almost anywhere we go.  Nolonger do we have, "Sorry I was at the grocery store for the past hour.." You get called while you are in front of the apples.  Conversely, you can call home and find out from your wife what type of apple to get for the pie.</p><p>People have grown accustomed to this... this leash.  There was a time when people didn't have cell phones or pagers for that matter.  When you went to the movies, you went to the movies, and when you were in the car driving to grandmas house, she couldn't call you.  Now she can call you, and I would bet that most people would answer the phone rather than wait until you could a) safely pull over or b) arrive at your destination before you answered the phone or checked to see who called and call them back.</p><p>Do I think that we'll ever change our behavior to where we don't have this desire to have instant contact?  Nope, and with the young kids of today growing up with <i>email being the slowest form of communication</i>, they won't think twice about driving while on the phone, texting or whatever comes out next (video-conferencing via the center console mounted computer?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody remember the days before call-waiting ?
Y'know the days when you called someone and if they were on it you 'd get this thing called a busy signal ?
We live in an age where we expect people to be able to be in instant contact .
I sent you a text message , you get it instantly .
We IM people on the computer .
Creating mobile phones allows us to call someone ( or be called by someone ) almost anywhere we go .
Nolonger do we have , " Sorry I was at the grocery store for the past hour.. " You get called while you are in front of the apples .
Conversely , you can call home and find out from your wife what type of apple to get for the pie.People have grown accustomed to this... this leash .
There was a time when people did n't have cell phones or pagers for that matter .
When you went to the movies , you went to the movies , and when you were in the car driving to grandmas house , she could n't call you .
Now she can call you , and I would bet that most people would answer the phone rather than wait until you could a ) safely pull over or b ) arrive at your destination before you answered the phone or checked to see who called and call them back.Do I think that we 'll ever change our behavior to where we do n't have this desire to have instant contact ?
Nope , and with the young kids of today growing up with email being the slowest form of communication , they wo n't think twice about driving while on the phone , texting or whatever comes out next ( video-conferencing via the center console mounted computer ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody remember the days before call-waiting?
Y'know the days when you called someone and if they were on it you'd get this thing called a busy signal?
We live in an age where we expect people to be able to be in instant contact.
I sent you a text message, you get it instantly.
We IM people on the computer.
Creating mobile phones allows us to call someone (or be called by someone) almost anywhere we go.
Nolonger do we have, "Sorry I was at the grocery store for the past hour.." You get called while you are in front of the apples.
Conversely, you can call home and find out from your wife what type of apple to get for the pie.People have grown accustomed to this... this leash.
There was a time when people didn't have cell phones or pagers for that matter.
When you went to the movies, you went to the movies, and when you were in the car driving to grandmas house, she couldn't call you.
Now she can call you, and I would bet that most people would answer the phone rather than wait until you could a) safely pull over or b) arrive at your destination before you answered the phone or checked to see who called and call them back.Do I think that we'll ever change our behavior to where we don't have this desire to have instant contact?
Nope, and with the young kids of today growing up with email being the slowest form of communication, they won't think twice about driving while on the phone, texting or whatever comes out next (video-conferencing via the center console mounted computer?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416184</id>
	<title>What, the tax cameras can't tell?</title>
	<author>gblackwo</author>
	<datestamp>1260649200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We actually have to rely on people to fine and tax Londoners? That sounds like work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We actually have to rely on people to fine and tax Londoners ?
That sounds like work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We actually have to rely on people to fine and tax Londoners?
That sounds like work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418864</id>
	<title>addictive?</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1260628020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two (yes, over generalised, etc) categories of driver:</p><p>1. Those who drive defensively, are relatively courteous and a penalty (demerit) on the license would be unthinkable - <i>embarassing</i> </p><p>2. People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road. A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else's fault. Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points, though they'll still chance it sometimes.</p><p>I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone (but not initiate a call) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it. Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off, it was so distracting I just had to turn it off, though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering. Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.</p><p>p.s. If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving, tell them you will call back and hang up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two ( yes , over generalised , etc ) categories of driver : 1 .
Those who drive defensively , are relatively courteous and a penalty ( demerit ) on the license would be unthinkable - embarassing 2 .
People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road .
A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else 's fault .
Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points , though they 'll still chance it sometimes.I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone ( but not initiate a call ) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it .
Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off , it was so distracting I just had to turn it off , though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering .
Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.p.s .
If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving , tell them you will call back and hang up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two (yes, over generalised, etc) categories of driver:1.
Those who drive defensively, are relatively courteous and a penalty (demerit) on the license would be unthinkable - embarassing 2.
People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road.
A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else's fault.
Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points, though they'll still chance it sometimes.I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone (but not initiate a call) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it.
Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off, it was so distracting I just had to turn it off, though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering.
Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.p.s.
If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving, tell them you will call back and hang up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062</id>
	<title>Texting and driving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260648180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was almost hit by some asshat teenager in a SUV two weeks ago because he was texting on his fucking phone in the middle of the night while doing 70mph down a freeway I ended up in the ditch avoiding the lil fuck. Police should fine them and confiscate the phone and have it destroyed. Talking and driving is one thing but to be so stupid as to fucking text and drive is an entirely different thing. Hell throw in a 6month license suspension if they get pulled over for texting and driving. I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner.

If you didn't notice I really hate people who text and drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was almost hit by some asshat teenager in a SUV two weeks ago because he was texting on his fucking phone in the middle of the night while doing 70mph down a freeway I ended up in the ditch avoiding the lil fuck .
Police should fine them and confiscate the phone and have it destroyed .
Talking and driving is one thing but to be so stupid as to fucking text and drive is an entirely different thing .
Hell throw in a 6month license suspension if they get pulled over for texting and driving .
I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner .
If you did n't notice I really hate people who text and drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was almost hit by some asshat teenager in a SUV two weeks ago because he was texting on his fucking phone in the middle of the night while doing 70mph down a freeway I ended up in the ditch avoiding the lil fuck.
Police should fine them and confiscate the phone and have it destroyed.
Talking and driving is one thing but to be so stupid as to fucking text and drive is an entirely different thing.
Hell throw in a 6month license suspension if they get pulled over for texting and driving.
I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner.
If you didn't notice I really hate people who text and drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418926</id>
	<title>Re:Positive Reinforcement</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1260628860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, <b>most of us respond positively to scientific fact </b>rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?</p></div><p>No, apparently religious primitives still make up a majority of the worlds population.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising ?
Strange as it may see , most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine .
Who can say why this takes place ? No , apparently religious primitives still make up a majority of the worlds population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they tried educating rather than penalising?
Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.
Who can say why this takes place?No, apparently religious primitives still make up a majority of the worlds population.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416660</id>
	<title>Perfect condition to get some revenue</title>
	<author>RandomUsername99</author>
	<datestamp>1260608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a hint from my lovely state, Massachusetts (among others... i know, but we're one of the worst.) If you're a government and you can fine people for doing something, and the fine doesn't deter them from doing it... well son you've just created yourself a source of revenue. It's addictive. Soon enough you'll figure out what other non-crimes you can make fineable offenses like declaring a snow emergency (a state where parking is restricted to make room for snow plows and emergency vehicles) when it's not actually snowing or very little snow is forecast, then give out thousands of tickets for $100 and tow everyone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a hint from my lovely state , Massachusetts ( among others... i know , but we 're one of the worst .
) If you 're a government and you can fine people for doing something , and the fine does n't deter them from doing it... well son you 've just created yourself a source of revenue .
It 's addictive .
Soon enough you 'll figure out what other non-crimes you can make fineable offenses like declaring a snow emergency ( a state where parking is restricted to make room for snow plows and emergency vehicles ) when it 's not actually snowing or very little snow is forecast , then give out thousands of tickets for $ 100 and tow everyone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a hint from my lovely state, Massachusetts (among others... i know, but we're one of the worst.
) If you're a government and you can fine people for doing something, and the fine doesn't deter them from doing it... well son you've just created yourself a source of revenue.
It's addictive.
Soon enough you'll figure out what other non-crimes you can make fineable offenses like declaring a snow emergency (a state where parking is restricted to make room for snow plows and emergency vehicles) when it's not actually snowing or very little snow is forecast, then give out thousands of tickets for $100 and tow everyone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30421054</id>
	<title>easy to control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260737520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is easy to control this. Using measurement of the doppler effect, simply have base stations reject calls from phones that are moving faster than a certain speed.</p><p>Or, you can build this into the phone itself. Not hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is easy to control this .
Using measurement of the doppler effect , simply have base stations reject calls from phones that are moving faster than a certain speed.Or , you can build this into the phone itself .
Not hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is easy to control this.
Using measurement of the doppler effect, simply have base stations reject calls from phones that are moving faster than a certain speed.Or, you can build this into the phone itself.
Not hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30431526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30419464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30429814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1647247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30419464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30431526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30422712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30417016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1647247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30415906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30418024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30429814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1647247.30416436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
